icofom study series - 44
Transcripción
icofom study series - 44
ICOFOM STUDY SERIES - 44 Museology exploring the concept of MLA (Museums-Libraries-Archives) Bruno Brulon Soares and Kerstin Smeds Guest editors ICOFOM Study Series, Vol. 44, 2016 2 ICOFOM Study Series, Vol. 44, 2016 International Journal of the ICOM International Committee for Museology (ICOFOM) Editors / Rédacteurs / Editores Ann DAVIS Former Director, The Nickle Arts Museum, University of Calgary, Canada François MAIRESSE Université Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3, CERLIS, Labex ICCA, France ICOFOM : Board members / Bureau / Miembros de la Junta Vinoš Sofka, Honorary President, ICOFOM, Sweden André Desvallées, Conservateur général honoraire du patrimoine, France Ann Davis, Past President of ICOFOM, Former Director, The Nickle Arts Museum, University of Calgary, Canada François Mairesse, President of ICOFOM, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3, France Indira Aguilera Kohl, Curator, Fundación Museos Nacionales, Venezuela Bruno Brulon Soares, Universidade Federal do Est. do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Wanchen Chang, Taipei National University of the Arts, Taiwan Mónica R. de Gorgas, Former Director, Museo Nacional Estancia Jesuítica de Alta Gracia, Argentina Jennifer Harris, Curtin University, Australia Anna Leshchenko, Russian St. University for the Humanities, Russia Lynn Maranda, Curator Emerita, Museum of Vancouver, Canada Eiji Mizushima, University of Tsukuba, Japan Anita B. Shah, Museum consultant, Tulsi Graphics, Hyderabad, India Kerstin Smeds, Umeå universitet, Sweden Olga Truevtseva, Altai State Pedagogical Academy, Russia Cristina Vannini, Director, Soluzionimuseali, Italy Advisory Committee / Comité d’avis d’ICOFOM / Consejo Consultivo Maria Cristina Bruno, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil Bernard Deloche, Professor Emeritus, Université de Lyon 3, France André Desvallées, Conservateur général honoraire du patrimoine, France Peter van Mensch, Professor Emeritus, Reinwardt Academie, Netherlands Martin Schaerer, President of ICOM Ethics Committee, Switzerland Tereza Scheiner, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Tomislav Šola, Professor Emeritus, University of Zagreb, Croatia Secretariat for the ICOFOM Study Series General secretary: Articles français: Artículos en español: English articles: Anna Leshchenko Suzanne Nash/Audrey Doyen Mónica Risnicoff de Gorgas Lynn Maranda Articles and correspondence should be sent to the following email: [email protected] ISSN: 2309-1290 ICOFOM Study Series (Print) ISSN: 2306-4161 ICOFOM Study Series (Online) ISBN: 978-92-9012-416-0 © International Committee for Museology of the International Council of Museums (ICOM/UNESCO) Published by ICOFOM, Paris 3 ICOFOM Study Series, Vol. 44, 2016 The following symposium was organized at the University of Tsukuba (Japan) under the supervision of Prof. Eiji Mizushima. Contents – Sommaire – Índice Introduction Ann Davis – Co-Editor Two Humanistic Communication Theories for Museums, Libraries and Archives ........................... 5 Bruno Brulon Soares – Guest editors Museums as Theme Parks: from the Informational Paradigm to the Reflexive Experience……………..17 Bruno Brulon Soares and Kerstin Smeds – Guest editors Museology exploring the concept of MLA (MuseumsLibraries-Archives) and probing its interdisciplinarity .............................................................................. 29 Papers – Articles– Artículos Žarka Vujić and Helena Stublić – Croatia Museology as Part of Information and Communication Sciences in Croatia:a View on a Thirty-Year-Long Experience …………………….. 37 Norma Angélica ÁvilaMeléndez and Federico PadillaGómez– Mexico Apuntes sobre el Proceso Museal. La exposición como archivo en proceso …………………………. 47 Alejandro Sabido Sánchez Juárez – Mexico Amoxcalli. Un análisis sobre la dimensión ontológica de los códices en los archivos, bibliotecas y museo. ………………………………………………………… 57 Jennifer Harris – Australia Textual Danger in MLA Convergence …………… 69 Francisca Hernández Hernández – Spain Documentary Sources of Museology: Reflections and Perspectives …………………………………… 81 Luciana Menezes de Carvalho and Tereza Cristina Moletta Scheiner – Brazil Museology and its constituent dialogues : inside and outside the boundaries ……………………………. 95 4 Daniel Schmitt – France Pour une approche énactive de la muséologie ... 107 Case Studies – Etudes de cas – Estudios de caso Shuchen Wang – Finland Atoms and bits of cultural heritage: Towards an ecosystem of museum industry in the digital age.119 Two Humanistic Communication Theories for Museums, Libraries and Archives Ann Davis Former Director, The Nickle Arts Museum, University of Calgary - Canada An unexpected problem arose with the 2011 opening of the new University of Calgary library: too few chairs. Contemporary assumptions had suggested that the wide availability of library materials online would mean that patrons would not physically come to a building, but would rather consult necessary sources on their computers from the comfort of home. Yet, far from deserted, this new library needed more seats. What happened in a museum? A 2012 exhibition, Matisse: Pairs and Series, at the Pompidou Centre in Paris was wildly popular, engaging visitors in protracted discussions and long stays in the show. At the same time, the wonderful permanent collection a few floors below was virtually empty. How are archives working? Recently I preordered material from the national archives of Canada. After I had gone through security and registered, I went to pick up my order only to be told by an apologetic archivist that my documents had been misplaced. I would be notified when they were found and would I come back. The staff of the archives had been cut again. These are some examples of communication challenges and successes for memory institutions today. This paper will explore two humanistic communication theories that examine these problems, starting first with Zygmunt Bauman’s emphasis on physical space. Discussing the realities of living in an age of uncertainty, Bauman turns to a sense of place in the production of meaning and identity. Central to this idea is an emphasis on society, on people rather than technology, a new humanism analogous to the democratic, humanitarian ideas of the Enlightenment. Progress is defined here in social terms, with technology and collections playing supporting roles. Second, following Martin Heidegger and John Dewey, separation of mind and body is rejected in favour of uniting thinking and action. The theory of embodied cognition posits that the workings of the mind and body are intertwined to a far greater degree than previously understood. Here the generation effect, learning by generating or doing rather than simply observing, is important. These two theories help to clarify some of the very real contemporary challenges faced by museums, libraries, and archives and seek to suggest possible solutions. Bauman and a sense of place Zygmunt Bauman, a Polish sociologist living in England, is concerned with how we find meaning and identity in what he calls an age of uncertainty. In his recent book Liquid Times, he describes a world in which the real powers that shape our conditions are global, but our institutions of political action are local. This confrontation - the strong word he uses - occurs in cities where the “battlegrounds on which global powers and stubbornly local meanings and identities meet, clash, struggle and seek a satisfactory, or just bearable, settlement” (Bauman, 2007, p. 81). People, as global operators, may 6 Two Humanistic Communication Theories for Museums, Libraries and Archives roam in cyberspace, but as human agents they are confined to physical spaces. These environments are crucial. It is around places that human experience tends to be formed and gleaned, that life-sharing is attempted to be managed, that life meaning is conceived, absorbed and negotiated. And it is in places that human urges and desires are gestated and incubated, that they live in the hope of fulfilment, run the risk of frustration - and are indeed, more often than not, frustrated and strangled. (Bauman, 2007, p.81, emphasis in original) Here we have the paradox of increasingly local politics in a world emphatically shaped by global processes. Bauman goes on in his pessimistic fashion to emphasize, following Manuel Castells, that the “ever more conspicuous mark of our time is the intense … ‘production of meaning and identity: my neighbourhood, my community, my city, my school, my tree, my river, my beach, my chapel, my peace, my environment’” (Bauman, 2007, pp. 83-84, quoting Castells, 1997, pp.61, 25). It is these very local spaces and places that are of interest to us; however, as often configured today, they may be problematic, contributing to isolation rather than mitigating it. Bauman contends that architects and urban planners have added to the very real difficulties of urban life by designing cities that exclude and segregate rather than include and increase tolerance to difference. He is especially critical of the segregation of residential and public spaces. More favourable would be an opposite architectural and urban planning strategy, one that promotes “the propagation of open, inviting and hospitable public spaces which all categories of urban residents would be tempted to attend regularly and knowingly and willingly share” (Bauman, 2007, p.91). He references Hans Gadamer, who points out in Truth and Method that mutual understanding is prompted by a “fusion of horizons,” horizons developed and expanded in the course of accumulating experiences. Bauman concludes that the “‘fusion’ that mutual understanding requires can only be the outcome of shared experience; and sharing experience is inconceivable without shared space” (Bauman, 2007, p. 92, emphasis in original). This creates a sense of place. What characterizes this sense of place? It is more than local and regional identity, claims Beverly Sandalack, an urban design professor at the University of Calgary. Rather it is authentic identity. “This authentic identity,” she writes, “usually arises from the responsiveness to certain local and regional factors, to local environment and to cultural process and form - over time” (Sandalack, 2005, p.13). Authentic identity is also personal and experiential. It is necessary, for “we need places other than our own homes to call our own” (Sandalack, 2005, p.13). Identity and its expression in place have historic roots. The ancient Romans believed in a genius loci or a spirit of place; according to Christian Norberg-Schulz, a Norwegian architectural theorist, they thought it was “of great existential importance to come to terms with the genius of the locale where (their) life takes place” (quoted in Sandalack, 2005, p. 14; Norberg-Schulz, 1979, p.18). Genius loci, then, has identity – an identity derived from the “particular relationships of things to each other in a particular place” (Quantrill, 1987, p. 46). Physical artifacts as well as human intervention are necessary for a sense of place. For a space to have meaning, it needs to belong and Ann Davis 7 to be the continuous responsibility of a group of people. Roger Trancik, an urban design professor at Cornell University, felicitously characterizes this as “a certain patina given by human use over time” (Trancki, 1986, p.113). According to Norberg-Schulz, a sense of place needs two psychological functions: orientation and identification. Orientation refers to legibility, readability, or how parts can be deciphered through location, shape, colour or arrangement and understood to form a coherent mental pattern. Identification involves becoming friends with the environment, working with it, not against it (Norberg-Schulz, 1979, pp.19-21). A sense of place, that is, the ability to orient ourselves and to identify with an environment, is greatest when the environment is both familiar and distinctive; this increases the potential depth and intensity of human experience (Lynch 1960, p. 10). A space, then, only becomes a place “when it is given a contextual meaning derived from cultural and regional content” (Trancik 1986, p. 112) and when it supports and is supported by a community. Authentic identity is not something that is imposed, but something that is derived from its location in space and time, and from human interaction and use, over time. (Sandalack, 2005, p. 15) Memory is linked to a sense of place in important ways, and ways important to us. The ancient Athenians and Romans derived the “method of loci,” essentially a mnemonic device to promote and order memories in the head. The method involves constructing in one’s mind a detailed building, at times called a “memory palace,” inside which memories can be put and then retrieved. Subsequently, from an imaginary memory place there developed a real, physical memory place, a cabinet of curiosity, a collection of objects in an organized, manageable interior space. Michael Harris, a journalist and documentary filmmaker, calls both methods – loci and cabinets of curiosity – attempts to “pull a world’s worth of material into a small, navigable space” (Harris, 2014, p. 147). As Nicholas Carr describes, perceiving and remembering space and location is linked how navigation works in the mind and memory. In the early 1970s, researchers at University College London discovered location-keyed neurons, which they dubbed “place cells.” In 2005, a team of Norwegian neuroscientists discovered a different set of place cells, which they called “grid cells.” Taken together, grid and place cells, according to science writer James Gorman, act “as a kind of built-in navigation system.” In addition to their role in navigation, these cells appear to be involved in the formation of memories, particularly memories of events and experiences. In a 2013 article in Nature Neuroscience, scientists concluded that, “The neuronal mechanisms that evolved to define the spatial relationship among landmarks can also serve to embody associations among objects, events and other types of factual information” (quoted in Carr, 2014, pp. 134-135). Space and place, then, seem to have considerable importance for memory and associations. Thinking and acting Museums, libraries and archives are not simply memory institutions, although that is part of their attraction. Rather they are also, importantly, creating organizations where people go to explore and discover, in short to think. So the nature of thinking is important. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 8 Two Humanistic Communication Theories for Museums, Libraries and Archives More and more theorists are convinced that thinking is bound up with action, that if you really want to know something, you have to do it. John Dewey, an influential American educator and writer, who made groundbreaking contributions to educational theory, philosophy and art history, was adamant about the ties between mind and body. “Thinking, or knowledge-getting, is far from being the armchair thing it is often supposed to be,” wrote Dewey in 1916. “Hands and feet, apparatus and appliances of all kinds are as much a part of it as changes in the brain” (Dewey, 1916, p. 13-14; in Carr, 2014, p.148). From Hegel and Darwin, Dewey conceived of experience “as an interaction with, as well as a reconstruction of, the environment” (Dewey,1964 [1916], p. 577). This experience, the result of “interaction of organism and environment,” becomes participation and communication. The means of this participation are “senseorgans with their connected motor apparatus” (Dewey,1964 [1916], p.593). Dewey championed humans’ unique ability to unify “sense and impulse, … brain and eye and ear” (Dewey, 1916 [1964], p. 593). This theory was based on an active, holistic interpretation: “Life goes on in an environment, not merely in [sic] it but because of it, through interaction with it” (Dewey,1964 [1916], p.579). Space and place have considerable importance for memory and associations. Martin Heidegger, the German philosopher, argued that the deepest form of understanding available to us “is not mere perceptual cognition, but, rather, a handling, using and taking care of things, which has its own kind of knowledge” (Carr, 2014, p. 148). The separation of mind and body promoted by Descartes and generally accepted in the west, though not in the east, is here rejected in favour of one whole, a unity. Such rejection is continued by the Portuguese-American neuroscientist Antonio Damasio and the renowned Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells (Castells, 2009, p. 138). The illusion of mind-body dualism exploded in contemporary psychology and neuroscience has resulted in what is being called embodied cognition. Confirming what Dewey and Heidegger posited, embodied cognition submits, as Nicholas Carr notes in his provocative book The Glass Cage: Not only are the brain and body composed of the same matter, but their workings are interwoven to a degree far beyond what we assume. The biological processes that constitute “thinking” emerge not just from neural computations in the skull but from the actions and sensory perceptions of the entire body. (Carr, 2014, p. 149) Philosopher Shaun Gallagher, in his important book How the Body Shapes the Mind, declared that, “Nothing about human experience remains untouched by human embodiment, from the basic perceptual and emotional processes that are already at work in infancy, to a sophisticated interaction with other people … from the exercise of free will in intentional action, to the creation of cultural artifacts that provide for further human affordances” (Gallagher, 2005, p. 247). Just how all this works is still being explored, but what seems clear is that thinking cannot be separated from physical being, just as physical being cannot be separated from the world around us. The concept of embodied cognition helps to explain, as Gallagher suggests, our prodigious interest in technology. Because we are Ann Davis 9 tuned to our environment, our bodies and minds are quick to acquire tools and other artifacts. These tools might be a cane or hammer, each of which will be incorporated by our brain into its neural map of our body. Other animals, such as monkeys and elephants, also use tools this way. But it is humans who have devised tools to extend our mental as well as our physical capabilities. These tools are often helpful, but the ease with which we use technology and make it a part of our daily functioning can also be harmful; they can and do separate the mind from action, actually disembodying us, often producing an erosion of skills and a dulling of perceptions. As Carr explains: One of the great ironies of our time is that even as scientists discover more about the essential roles that physical action and sensory perception play in the development of our thoughts, memories, and skills, we’re spending less time acting in the world and more time living and working through the abstract medium of the computer screen ... With the general-purpose computer, we’ve managed, perversely enough, to devise a tool that steals from us the bodily joy of working with tools. (Carr, 2014,p. 151) Another important part of acting in the world, of communication, as Manuel Castells notes, involves mirror neurons. Mirror neurons represent the action of another subject, enabling processes of imitation and empathy. They make it possible to relate emotionally to others. Mirror neurons activate the same neural networks when one feels fear or sees someone else feeling fear, or when seeing images of people feeling fear or when watching events evoking fear. Furthermore they assist in the process of abstraction, the shift from observation and action to representation (Castells, 2009, pp.144145; see also Ananiev, 2011). Castells comments that, “The capacity to evaluate the intentional state of others and to send signals to manipulate these intentions can assist evolution toward higher cooperation, inducing better individual and group outcomes” (2009, p. 145). Thought as well as memory are involved in what is called the generation effect. Since the 1970s, cognitive psychologists have explored the effect that people remember much better when generating or producing rather than just reading. In an early, famous experiment, Norman Slameck asked people to memorize antonyms, like hot and cold. Some test subjects were given cards like this: hot : cold Others were given slightly different cards like this: hot : c that showed only the first letter of the second word, the antonym. Subsequently those with the card with the missing letters were much better at remembering the word pairs (Carr, 2014, pp.72-73). A 2011 Science article demonstrated that students who read a complex assignment during a study period and then spent a second period recalling as much as possible, learned the material more fully than students who read the assignment repeatedly over four study periods. Thus we see that the mental action of generation improves the ability to carry out activities that “require conceptual reasoning and requisite deeper cognitive processing” (Carr, 2014, p. 73, ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 10 Two Humanistic Communication Theories for Museums, Libraries and Archives quoting Britte Haugan Chen). However, the easy availability of information online weakens our memory for facts. Computers allow us to skip the work of generation, to rely overtly on Google, and thus to avoid using our brains fully. The result is a forfeiting of deep learning. Nicholas Carr sums up the high value of the generation effect and the great losses provoked by its absence: The kinds of effort that give rise to talent - characterized by challenging tasks, clear goals, and direct feedback are very similar to those that provide us with a sense of flow [generation]. They‘re immersive experiences. They also describe the kinds of work that force us to actively generate knowledge rather than passively take in information. Honing our skills, enlarging our understanding, and achieving personal satisfaction and fulfillment are all of a piece. They all require connections, physical and mental, between the individual and the world. They all require, to quote the American philosopher Robert Talisse, “getting your hands dirty with the world and letting the world kick back in a certain way.” (Carr, 2014, p. 85) Museums, Libraries and Archives If Gallagher, Carr, Castells and many others are right, and technology is making us dumber, less physically active and less able to reason, can we both retain the vast benefits we have derived from technology and counter its negative effects? Can we join thinking and physical action to create a sense of place? Since technology is increasingly used in libraries, as well as in museums and archives, are these memory and collecting institutions doomed? Are we in the ironic position where institutions created to support and promote education are actually harming learning? Perhaps a way around these tricky problems is a renewed emphasis on people within an environment, a revitalization of humanism and a reduced emphasis on the collections. Museums are certainly challenged today. If holding collections, they need to devote considerable staff and resources to the care of these precious artifacts, leaving little time or energy for other matters, including visitors. At the same time, public funding is often withering, so museums must apportion precious, limited resources to fundraising. Furthermore, the numerous suggestions for visitor engagement, the active mind/active body theory promoted by Dewey and so many others, runs counter to the museum tradition where the visitor is expected to acknowledge and accept the authority and superior knowledge of the museum staff. Changing a visitor from a passive receptor to an active participant is not an easy task. The Matisse show, Matisse: Pairs and Series, at the Pompidou Centre was a brilliant example of an event that effectively melded the traditional art museum emphasis on aesthetics with the postmodern visitor-created experience. The show addressed a question many visitors ask of creators: “How did he do this?” Right from the straightforward exhibition title, we know exactly what to expect. No cute, sexy or grand language here. On a wall, adjacent to the lineup to get into the show, an extensive timeline was mounted – laying out Matisse’s creative life, in considerable detail, through words and photographs. Since the show was very popular, visitors had to stand for some time in this line and therefore had lots of Ann Davis 11 opportunity to become familiar with Matisse’s life, even if they knew little about it before. Once inside, visitors delighted in works hung chronologically, in pairs or series as the title suggested. The space was organized such that each pair or grouping could be seen from one vantage point, so that the individual pieces could be appreciated both for themselves and easily compared to others. Extended labels, written in clear, non-technical language, provided lots of information on each work and suggested approaches for considering the contrasting works. The theme of the exhibition, clear right from the beginning, was evident in every room, always anchored in Matisse’s extraordinary ability to reimagine a scene differently, to present to us varied interpretations of the same thing. Why was the exhibition so successful? One reason, of course, was the quality of the content. Not only is Matisse a very great painter, well known and loved, but also the particular pieces exhibited were among his very best. Then the theme of the show, the idea of exploring how he worked by showing contrasting paintings, was entirely in keeping with Matisse’s own methodology and was beautifully executed. The show’s thesis, and the curators’ interpretation, was not forced or uncertain, but clearly and happily demonstrated throughout. Each pair or grouping was very carefully chosen, such that the changes from one piece to the next were plainly visible, even to a visitor who had no previous knowledge of the master’s work. For these reasons alone the show would have been considered a success. However a further, overarching reason made this experience great and memorable: the exhibition was about more than the work of a great French painter. It was about much more than art history. Its theme touched everyone, probing a universal question, for the show was fundamentally about the nature of creativity. The response of the visitors was most interesting. They were fully engaged. People would stop at each group of paintings, first to look and read the labels, but also, importantly and consistently, to discuss, parse, and analyze. This process would take a considerable amount of time: there was no sense of hurry, of a necessity to move on. Rather families and friends would consider one pair, then perhaps circle back to reexamine a previous pair, or stop, sit on an appropriately placed bench, and continue to talk. This exhibition certainly demonstrated the centrality of sense of place as a location of meaning making, one that breaks down previous barriers to expand into the new and wonderful – Gadamer’s “fusion of horizons.” Authentic identity was discovered, as the broad theme of creativity found resonance with every viewer, for in the past each person has struggled with the problem of how to create, even if creating means mending, metal-working or management rather than painting. Following Dewey, Heidegger and Carr, the show amply confirmed the ties of mind and body, the moving of both mind and body in consort. Mirror neurons were actively used in the numerous discussions, both those held during time in the exhibition and afterwards. A visit to Matisse: Pairs and Series was a lasting, memorable experience. The contrast in visitor reaction between the Matisse exhibition and the display of the Pompidou permanent collection a few floors below is extreme. It graphically shows the very real problems museums have in achieving audience engagement, for not only were there few visitors in the famous, high quality, permanent collection, but the ones that were there were mostly silent, wandering from one major ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 12 Two Humanistic Communication Theories for Museums, Libraries and Archives work to another, sometimes stopping, but there was little indication that they linked one work to another or to their past experiences. They were seldom dynamically involved. What is needed, then, is for museums to change from “being providers of content and designers of experience to becoming facilitator of experiences around content…[M]useum professionals must create activities that link the curatorial research and the institutional collection with interests, expectation and previous knowledge of the visitors” (Radice, 2015, p. 262).This is not denying the value of collections, but rather using them in ways better configured to visitors’ interests. A sense of place and mind-body links greatly help in this difficult endeavour. Libraries too are challenged. By the late 1990s, the Web had drastically changed libraries, not to say threatened them, for now users could access library information from anywhere, not just from inside a library building. This led to a major crisis, prompting the question “why do we need libraries?” For some people, the question is still valid today. While it is hard to get firm numbers of libraries that have closed, it has been reported that in 2012 more than 200 libraries were shuttered in the UK, and a 2013 article in The Guardian suggested that some felt 1000 would be closed by 2016. A new US college, Minerva, in San Francisco, has decided not to have a library at all (Wood, 2014, p. 53). The emergency prompted an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, on November 16, 2001, titled “The Deserted Library”, illustrated by a cover photograph of the inside of a library with no one in it. Two other important trends developed at this time, trends especially but not uniquely evident in academic libraries. The first was the Information Commons movement: quality, high-tech workspaces supported by technical and intellectual expertise. These new spaces were made possible with the second trend: the building of highdensity storage facilities away from the library building. Now the collection was moved out to make more room for users. Indeed, the first “bookless” libraries soon appeared (Hickerson, 2014, p. 16). It is with these three features in mind – the technological revolution, information commons and distant collection storage – that the new library at the University of Calgary was designed. Rather than including the traditional small carrels with protective sides, promoting quiet isolation, the new library features long tables, at which eight or more users sit with their computers in front of them, talk to their neighbours, discuss assignments, even eat lunch, drink coffee and get help with technological questions. It has become a community, populated by those with similar education who seek a convenient, friendly, not overly officious space to study and to socialize. The library quickly became so popular that more books were removed to the distant high-density storage building and 200 more chairs were added (Hickerson, 2014, p. 16). This new community focus, noted by OCLC (Online Computer Library Center), a global library cooperative active in more than 100 countries: moves the library towards a set of services around creation, curation, and consumption of resources that are less anchored in a locally managed collection, and more driven by engagement with research and learning behaviors.(Dempsey, Malpas,& Lavoie, 2014, p.10) Whether consciously or not, students countered Bauman’s uncertainty by creating a sense of place, a community in which Ann Davis 13 embodied cognition, mirror neurons, and the generation effect can and do have considerable range. This sense of community in a specific place, the emphasis on people rather than collections, is finding considerable favour. In November 2014, The Royal Society of Canada published a report on “Canada’s Libraries, Archives and Public Memory.” This report noted that: There is a growing realization that physical libraries are becoming even more important community spaces, places where people gather, share, and learn from each other. Print collections will occupy less physical space but, if anything, libraries will find that competing demands for quiet space and for noisy public space, for collaboration and for discovery spaces mean that library buildings will become larger and more flexible. (Royal Society, 2014, pp. 27-28) There are a number of exciting examples of libraries that emphasize people over collections, that are real community organizations. Alison Hopkins, Territorial Librarian of the Northwest Territories in Canada, reported on library programs that combine aspects of civic duty and public value: From January to March 2013, 20 public libraries offered 1000 programs attended by 14,000 people. These programs include a sewing circle, family computer night, a cupcake challenge, drumming and hand games, robotics club, and a Pokémon club. After-school programs are especially popular in small communities with few other options. (Royal Society, 2014, pp. 28-29) It is interesting to note that many of these activities involve bodymind unity and go well beyond the traditional library expectation that a patron will sit quietly reading a book. Internationally there are strong examples of genuine interaction between the institution and its users: DOK, in the Netherlands, developed software that allows library users to add images and stories to the library’s digital local history collection. The Library 10 in Helsinki permits users to program concert space any night of the week, without consulting staff except to ensure that the space is available. In Denmark, more than 50 public library buildings allow users to enter the space, including checking out physical material, even when the branch is closed; precautionary checks include using the library card as part of a general identification card. Discovery Layer software allows users to comment on library material they liked and didn’t like (Royal Society, 2014, pp. 24-25). This energetic attention to the citizen-user marks a tectonic shift in libraries and is particularly noticeable in community archives. The two communication theories - sense of place and body-mind links - are also germane to archives. But archives are somewhat different from libraries in that they cater to a more specialized audience, those interested in history and genealogy. Yet in building communities, archives have a very important role “for dealing with creating and authenticating evidence, storytelling, memory-making … Aboriginal or indigenous people have especially rich traditional cultures in this regard … as do some women’s and ethnic communities” (Royal Society, 2014, pp. 85-86). Shelley Sweeney, ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 14 Two Humanistic Communication Theories for Museums, Libraries and Archives Head of the University of Manitoba Archives & Special Collections, declares: Archival records are critically important to individuals and to society in general. They are the basis for individual and societal human rights, provide transparency of action and accountability for governments, and support enriching cultural activities that basically make life worth living, such as the creation of films and documentaries, the writing of books and histories, and the tracing of personal family genealogies. (Royal Society,2014, p. 88) Neglecting archives and archival collections is an inestimable loss to community and society. While library collections, especially paper ones, are taking second place to active people in the new humanistic library, in archives collections are assuming greater importance, although more physical activity is also being promoted. Archival collections may well be in analogue form; like libraries, archives still have, and will continue to deal with, paper. In Canada, it is estimated that only one to two percent of Canada’s documentary heritage is digital (Royal Society, 2014, p. 93). Unlike libraries that hold volumes available in many copies and therefore in many places, archives have scarce and unique holdings. OCLC records that special collections and archives, being composed of these rare and unique materials, are attracting more attention because they are a major factor in forming the reputation of the institution (Dempsey et al., 2014, p.17). With increased attention being given to archives and their collections, digitization and other methods of expanding access are also becoming more important. This has prompted increased attention given to how materials are shown in the online environment, not just as lists or photographs, but as coherent collections of materials. For example, University of Illinois’ special collections blog, Non Solus, highlights particular holdings by embedding them in a larger narrative about specific lines of critical inquiry (Dempsey et al., 2014, p.22). Returning to Bauman and a sense of place, the newly-opened archive of Stratford-Perth in Canada boasts not only a state-of-the art records storage room and a well-equipped public reading room, but also a gallery space in which to show “treasures of the collections, welcome school groups and host speakers on local history” (Royal Society, 2014, p.86). Archives, like museums, are mounting exhibitions to contextualize and characterize their holdings. Bauman’s particular, local place - place not space - is key in humanistic communications in museums, libraries and archives. A sense of place, built and supported by a community, generates the development of valued meaning and authentic identity. Open, inviting, hospitable places that urban residents regularly, willingly and knowingly share are surely what all three institutions aspire to be. From shared space comes the possibility of shared experience, which in turn promotes necessary mutual understanding. Museums, libraries and archives, as organizations geared to thinking, are beginning to recognize the important links between mind and body, and thus are starting to understand that, if you really want to know something, you have to do it and get your hands dirty. Embodied cognition and the generation effect reject passivity in favour of action, focusing more attention on the physical as well as the mental. The broad conclusion is that in museums and libraries, and to a certain extent archives, collections and technology – while certainly Ann Davis 15 valuable – should be secondary to sensory experience, humanistic communication through action. References Ananiev, V. (2011). The dialogic museum, dice and neurons: a few personalnotes on the topic.ICOFOM Studies Series, 40, 27- 32. Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge,UK: Polity Press. Carr, N. (2014). The Glass Cage: Automation and Us. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Castells, M. (1997).The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Castells, M. (2009).Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, A., & Sandalack, B.A. (Eds.) (2005).Sense of Place: A catalogue of essays. Calgary: The Nickle Arts Museum. Dempsey, L., Malpas, C., & Lavoie, B. (2014). Collection Directions: SomeReflections on the Future of Library Collections and Collecting, OCLC Research. Portal:Library and the Academy, 14(3). “The Deserted Library” (2001) Chronicle of Higher Education, November 16. Dewey, J. (1932). Art as Experience. In Hofstadter, A. & Kuhns, R. (Eds.). (1964). Philosophies of Art & Beauty: Selected Readings in Aesthetics from Plato to Heidegger. (pp. 579 - 646). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Essays in Experimental Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gallagher, S. (2005).How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, M. (2014).The End of Absence: Reclaiming what we’ve lost in a world of constant connection. Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. Hickerson, T. (2014).Designing 21st-Century Spaces for 21st-Century Roles.Felicitor, December, 15-18. (2013, July 12).Library campaigners predict 1,000 closures by 2016. The Guardian. Lippard, L.R. (1997). The Lure of the Local: senses of place in a multicentered society. New York: The New Press. Matisse: Paires et séries/ Pairs and series. (2012). Paris: Centre Pompidou. May, M. (2002). Exhibition Ideas: Integrating the Voices of Communities and Audiences. In B. Lord&G.D. Lord (Eds.).The Manual of Museum Exhibitions. (pp. 32–34). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1979). Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rozoli. Quantrill, M. (1987).The Environmental Memory: Man and Architecture in the Landscape of Ideas. New York: Schocken Books. Radice, S. (2015).Design and Participatory Practices Enhancing the Visitor Experience of Heritage.ICOFOM Study Series, 43a, 252-263. Royal Society of Canada. (2014). The Future Now: Canada’s Libraries, Archives and Public Memory. rsc-src.ca. Accessed June 16, 2015. Sandalack, B. A. (2005).Identity, continuity and place.In A. Davis&B. A. Sandalack (Eds.). (2005). Sense of Place: a catalogue of essays (pp. 13-26). Calgary: The Nickle Arts Museum. Trancki, R. (1986). Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Wood, G. (2014). The Future of College.The Atlantic, September 2014, 5059. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Museums as Theme Parks: from the Informational Paradigm to the Reflexive Experience Bruno Brulon Soares Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO) Brazil “Let’s pretend there’s a way of getting through into it, somehow, Kitty. Let’s pretend the glass has got all soft like gauze, so that we can get through. Why, it’s turning into a sort of mist now, I declare! It will be easy enough to get through –” (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, 1999 [1872] p. 4-5) What is Wonderland but a reflexive experience? Like a dream, it transports and guides you every step of the way toward the fullest experience of the ‘self’ away from the frameworks of reality, and until you cannot differentiate fantasy from reality. In the land of unimaginable experience designed by fairy tale, or in the heart of a museum exhibition, fantasy, as an artifice of the mind, is responsible for the creation of new worlds of imagined meaning within the wellknown reality. This significant breach between real and surreal is where the deepest social discoveries can be made. Museums are supposed to be imagined and not just created or developed. They work like a story being told and they need creativity as a starting point. Thus, their whole existence will depend on the convincing enunciation of the teller. In most social analyses of museums, researchers are misguided to direct their focus to the power of the “truth” disseminated by these institutions. What misguides them, in fact, is the very power of the museums’ convincing speech. Nevertheless, museums are powerful, not for the assumed ‘truth’ we may ‘read’ in their material objects or for the information they carry. Instead, their power lies in the performance that makes the audience believe in the act that is being played: what we may call the museum performance. The focus of this paper is the study of museums as social agents that produce performances. Distancing ourselves from a more informational and objective perspective – which may suggest a clear bond between museums and libraries, archives, or cultural centers for instance, and which approximates museology with information sciences – it would be preferable to think of museums in relation to theme parks, or carnivals, as in the North American institution. The anthropologist Anthony Seeger (1990, p. 13) suggests that theme parks are important in the sense that they alter perception. Theme parks, as much as many museums, alter the perception individuals have of themselves, of their own bodies and space. In a Ferris wheel, we are allowed to have different perspectives of space when we go up and down. In a Fool’s House, we are confronted with our own image in a distorted mirror. As in a traditional carnival, one is made to feel that the social rules do not apply there. The cultural performance establishes a permanent state of drama and play that allows the audience to relate to social order in a different, imaginative 18 Museums as Theme Parks: from the Informational Paradigm to the Reflexive Experience level of the social reality. However, a particularity of theme parks must be stressed: while most amusement parks are, in fact, noisy, chaotic, and subversive, a theme park tends to be conceptualized as an organized performance that is offered to the audience as a playful breach from social order – deceiving chaos by presenting a different version of lived reality. Defined by Victor Turner (1988, p. 22) as “the eye by which culture sees itself and the drawing board on which creative actors sketch out what they believe to be more apt or interesting ‘designs for living’”, the cultural performance instates a reflexive perspective to the social order in which, like in many successful museums or musealized sites, the audience is allowed to confront its place in history and in society. In this sense, a performance is often a critique of the social life it grows out of or “an evaluation (with lively possibilities of rejection) of the way society handles history” (Turner, 1988, p. 22). By comparing museums with theme parks and highlighting the value of reflexive experience, the present analysis aims to deconstruct the notion of museums as informational institutions and to propose a new frame for museology’s subject of study. As a result, Museology, as a discipline oriented to the study of what is produced by museums or of what produces them (sometimes called ‘museality’ or ‘musealization’), is progressively proving to be closer to a human or social science than to its traditional approximation to the information sciences, as some of the past theorists of these disciplines have insisted. The specificity of Museology’s subject of study: overcoming the informational paradigm Museology has long been submitted to an epistemology of the information sciences. As a discipline that was originally conceived as a ‘science’ by authors from Eastern and Central Europe since the 1960s, museology has been placed side by side with other applied disciplines such as archival studies and librarianship, being itself defined as an information science in the 1980s and 1990s: Information sciences include: information sciences in a narrow sense, documentation, communicology, theory of classification systems, general theory of systems, librarianship, bibliology, science of science, archivistics, MUSEOLOGY, lexicology, theory of artificial languages, theory of solving nonnumeric problems, cryptology, etc. (Maroević, 2004, p. 15) Some of the founding thinkers of theoretical museology from this part of the world – where an advanced theory for museology has been developed and disseminated – were responsible for placing the discipline among the “other” information sciences, mostly because they were trained and sometimes well-known researchers in that particular field of knowledge. According to them, these supposed ‘sciences’ within the field of information would be defined by dealing with “systematic study of the process of emitting, collecting, selecting, evaluating, elaborating, archiving, retrieval, transmission, distribution, explaining, using and protection of information” (Obrazloženje, 1982 apud Maroević, 1983 [2004]). As much as these subjects may be considered social processes related to the field of communication and directly connected to museum practice, we may argue that such an objective definition fails to include some of the Bruno Brulon Soares 19 most museological processes, which are: creating, recreating, imagining, enacting, and playing, among others. The central difference between museology and the information sciences – which we wish to stress in the present analysis – arises when one confronts the specific subjects of study. If one may consider the archive and the library (or their practical functions) respectively as the subjects of study of archival studies and librarianship, the same cannot be inferred about the museum in relation to museology. The main reason lies in the fact that these social sciences and their particular researchers are studying mere informational relations – leaving human experiences and performances outside of their scope. This is not the case for museology. In a way, we may infer that museology studies reflexive processes in the form of cultural performances, i.e. the focus in this contemporary discipline is taken away from fixed, stable objects as carriers of information to the subjective human experiences and the very act of creating new worlds in which information may be produced and transformed. Having the museum as a stage in which these reflexive encounters take place – a stage that can be instituted or improvised – museology cannot be perceived as a discipline that is irrefutably attached to an institution. From a different perspective, even the museum has been, to a great extent, distinguished from other informational institutions. For instance, libraries and archives treat information as the main object of the user’s discovery while, on the other hand, museums have the visitor (viewed as a social actor) as an object in itself. Information centers are supposed to be transparent; museums are allowed to ‘play’ hide and seek with their objects, using lights, shadows, sounds, and theater to engage their visitors in a meaningful performance. Of course museums deal with information too, but in such a way that it is impossible for them to be defined by disciplines that study them solely through an informational approach. In other words, the subject of museology cannot be so objective if we intend it to be human. If museums were all about transmitting data (as elements of reality), in the purest information sense, they would be deprived of imagination and wonder – subjective states that happen beyond the object. In that case, the museum context would replicate the traditional communication model (sender-message-receiver), and we know it is, in fact, a much more complex process than that. Musealization turns real things into representations of the things taken from reality. The museum represents things as objects, giving them a distinct status and value. Hence, the object is not in any case ‘raw reality’ but a complex representation. In other words, if we study performances, the stability of the museum (as a social category museologists are so attached to) vanishes in thin air. When taking into account the actors and its agencies, a researcher must consider that the object of a performative definition disappears when it is no longer performed, or, if it persists in the social order, then it means that other actors have taken over the relay (Latour, 2005, p. 37). That is how fugitive the empirical object really is. In the past, the founding mothers and fathers of our discipline have already approached such a perception that leads to the relativization of museology’s subject of study. Indeed, since 1965 in the former Czechoslovakia, Zbyněk Z. Stránský raised questions on the subject of study of museology, denying, for the first time, the museum as its ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 20 Museums as Theme Parks: from the Informational Paradigm to the Reflexive Experience ‘scientific’ subject matter (Stranský, 1965, pp. 30-33). The museum would be, according to Stránský, “only an instrument to perceive a certain way of cognition of society” (Stránský, 2005, p. 111 apud Baraçal, 2008, p. 70, italics added). He was responsible for the disconnection of the museology subject from the museum, as a historic institution, to museality – understood as a “specific aspect of reality”. This notion would lead Stránský to conceive the cognitive intention of museology as the ‘scientific’ interpretation of an “attitude of man to reality” (Stránský, 1980 apud van Mensch, 1992). This reflection was possibly the zero mark for the development of a systematic thinking on museology and its analytical subject, first in Central and Eastern Europe, and later in other parts of the globe. A “specific relation” or a reflexive experience? Anna Gregorová, a Czech author influenced by the gnosiological references introduced in museology by Stránský, defined, after him, the museological subject of study as “specific relations of man to reality” (Gregorová, 1980, p. 19). With this vague definition, Gregorová emphasized the fact that the subject in the relation realizes the totality of reality and at the same time differentiates itself from the object of observation. He/she differentiates the part from the whole, assuming a museum attitude towards the observed reality. The focus in many definitions presented in the first theoretical approaches to museology was on the cognitive notion of the “relations of man to reality” conceived by Stránský and Gregorová. This philosophical assertion reifies the separation of man from reality and presupposes the existence of a (material) reality that is divorced from society. According to a critical analysis, those are two sociological errors that should be adamantly avoided in a museology that should be more concerned with a wider range of associations among the different agents composing society. First, we may recall that the breach between subject and object is, in fact, fabricated by a particular appropriation of reality. It was first conceived as an important part of Descartes’ cogito, according to which subjects as ‘minds’ exist as completely separated entities from physical reality. This conception of a mind that is even detached from a physical body and exists beyond any materiality lies in the foundation of idealistic philosophy. It was further explored by Kant and discussed by Hegel. But it is only since the Enlightenment that Rationalism would translate it into politics, becoming a central part of dominant ideologies in the West. In the case of museums, this breach is a historic phenomenon that distinguishes Modernity and characterizes a certain a priori for the existence of this institution. Therefore, according to the Gregorovian assumption, museums are places where this separation is given between a subject that thinks and conceives the world as a mind and objective reality. As an institution that simply applies a specific relation of man to reality, museums are socially and philosophically outdated. Equally influenced by Stránský’s thinking, in 1981, the Brazilian museologist Waldisa Rússio defines the subject of museology as the museum fact, or the museological fact, understood as “the profound relationship between man, the cognizant subject, and the object” (Rússio, 1981, p. 42). This theorist separates, once again, the subject of reason – under the clear influence of the cogito – from the object of knowledge, “that part of reality to which man belongs, and Bruno Brulon Soares 21 over which he has the power to act”, both parts considered in the museum fact. The very definition of the subject of study of museology as a relation between parts that differentiate themselves, creating an asymmetry, is an error in the sense that it ignores how asymmetries and differences are created socially. There is no such thing as a ‘relation’ if we conceive the social world as a network of associations that generate constant transformation. The contemporary anthropologist Bruno Latour states that it is precisely because it is so difficult to maintain asymmetries, to durably entrench power relations, or to enforce inequalities, that so much work is being devoted to shifting the weak and fast-decaying ties to other types of links (Latour, 2005, p. 66). ‘Relations’ are a deceiving kind of link that reifies the social reality. In addition, the ‘social’ in itself is here perceived as “a type of connections between things that are not themselves social” (Latour, 2005, p. 5), or as a movement of re-association and reassembling (Latour, 2005, p. 7), according to Latour’s actor-network theory. What we propose in the present text is the dislocation of the epistemological problem of museology from the subject of study to the cognitive frames we use to interpret it. In other words, the museological problem is not having the museum as subject matter, but understanding the museum exclusively by a dated philosophical assumption (the Cartesian cogito), limiting all thinking processes. As we will sustain, the subject of museology should not be defined unidimensionally by the subject-object relation forged in the West, but instead should consider all kinds of possible associations among subjects, objects, relations, subjects behaving as objects, objects behaving as subjects, etc. These roles are performed by people and things in reality and are reified in the museum theory produced over the last fifty years. They are simply parts played by the most different types of elements, and they can be modified, inverted, transformed, or translated in different ways, forming what we call the museum performance. A performance theory for Museology Presenting the problem of museum and reality – reality as the museum object – Gregorová reaches an ontological problem at the core of museology, i.e. the explanation of reality in itself, as a carrier of a gnoseological value and potential (Gregorová, 1980, p. 19), or of a museum value also known as museality. By disconnecting the question from the museum in relation to the reality that ‘is produced’ by it, Gregorová points out to the fact that there is something between man and reality, something beyond the object and matter that is worth being studied. This thing, which is philosophically presented as a property of the museum object, is created by what can be called the museum performance. Cultural performances are always connected to ‘real’ events, but they are not simple expressions of culture or even of changing culture. Considering some cultural forms as not so much reflective as reflexive, Victor Turner points out that here the analogy is not with a mirror but rather with a reflexive verb (Turner, 1988, p. 24). In that sense, culture – like verbs – has at least two ‘moods’ – indicative and subjunctive – in most languages, and these moods are most hopelessly intermingled. As Turner explained, when society bends back on itself, it ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 22 Museums as Theme Parks: from the Informational Paradigm to the Reflexive Experience meanders, inverts, perhaps lies to itself, and puts everything so to speak into the subjunctive mood as well as the reflexive voice. (Turner, 1988, p.25) By doing that, society works in a state of supposition, desire, and possibility, rather than stating actual facts. This arrangement of things dissolves what were once factual components of reality and instates a more playful spirit. A ‘reflex’, on the other hand, presupposes ‘realism’. But of course, even in the context of a museum or in art and literature, realism is only a matter of artifice and what is real is a result of cultural definition. For Turner, the genres of cultural performance are not simple mirrors, but rather “magical mirrors of social reality”, because they are capable of exaggerating, inverting, re-formatting, magnifying, minimizing, and even falsifying the known chronicled events (Turner, 1988, p. 42). What we aim for, with the separation of the museological subject of study from the strict man-reality relation to a broader, sociologically founded unit of analysis, is to demonstrate that a relation between philosophical entities – man-reality, subject-object – constitutes a type of performance, in fact. This way we distance ourselves from an empirical system of relations to reach a system of associations that study actors in their agencies instead of a Cartesian equation. In that sense, ‘man’ cannot be considered the only actor in a ‘relation’. For the actor-network theory (ANT), defended by Bruno Latour, if we stick to the decision to consider the actors through their agencies, then anything that modifies a state of affairs by making a difference is supposed to be an actor (Latour, 2005, p. 71). Thus, there is no hierarchy established to differentiate subjects from objects. A thing is also studied as an actor in the subject-object equation – or, at least, an actant, if it has no figuration. Of course, this does not mean that these participants ‘determine' the action, that “hammers ‘impose' the hitting of the nail”. According to Latour: “In addition to ‘determining' and serving as a 'backdrop for human action', things might authorize, allow, afford, encourage, permit, suggest, influence, block, render possible, forbid, and so on.” (Latour, 2005, p.71) This also does not mean that objects do things ‘instead’ of human actors. Latour argues that no social science can exist without first exploring the question of who and what participates in the action. This primary empirical question could mean – as it certainly does for museology – letting in the so-called “non-humans” (Latour, 2005, p. 71). The human-reality relation, then – limiting of the subject of museology – could begin to be perceived as a relation between associations, and, in that sense, it could be fully studied by a human science. For a more realistic sociological perspective, we have to accept that the continuity of any course of action or relation will rarely consist of human-to-human or object-object connections, but will probably zigzag from one to the other (Latour, 2005, p. 75). The simplistic triangle between man, object, and institution that traveled through all museological theory so far is sociologically barren. The museum performance, in which the three roles of the ‘public’, the ‘object’, and the ‘museum’ are socially enacted, should no longer be perceived as a true social relation, in order to be systematically studied as a performance of the social – or of the museum. Bruno Brulon Soares 23 Furthermore, this new perception implies that if the museum is a thing that performs the relation of man to reality, then musealization is the action towards which we should direct our interest – as social scientists or researchers of associations. Because associations prevail, we can conceive of, for instance, calculation without a calculator, acceleration without a car, or even education without a school. Musealization, then, exists beyond the museum. It is the subjective experience that makes the theme park, not the attractions by themselves. It is the subject reflected in the distorted mirror who is experiencing the distortion. Just as the hammer does not ‘impose’ the hitting of the nail, museums do not impose musealization. In fact, museums are the mediators and not the main actors of this process; they participate in the action, but they cannot configure, in any conceivable way, the sole subject of museology. Thus, the study of museum performances intends to reach realization of the fact that objects as well as subjects are made. Objects.Subjects.Reality. Social categories constructed in the museum performance instead of absolute truths constitutive of this institution. Masks that museums enact in a specific moment of our history. Museology, as a social science, cannot be limited to them in order to define its field of study. The museum as theme park: museology, exploring reflexive experiences What is most telling about a theme park performance is how it responds to the audiences’ needs to escape reality and individual demand to experience the ‘self’ in a different state. In general, spectators are very aware of the moment when a performance takes off. When the performance begins, and you are inside the known limits of ‘fantasyland’, a presence manifests itself. Something has ‘happened’. The performers have touched or moved the audience, and some kind of collaboration, a collective special theatrical life, is born. Through this collaborative force that is instated when the audience believes in the performance of the performer, the audience is transported to the new world created with the performer. In the performance, once the audience crosses the gates of the theme park or reaches a state of museality, the boundaries between staged reality and the social order disappear, as well as the constructed limits that separate the subject from the object. The ultimate goal of museum performance is liberating the audience from its regular ties to reality and transforming the subject in the object of its own reflection. Suppressing the separation predicted in the cogito, the performance creates a brand-new type of relation for the ‘self’ in the musealized stage. As in the theme park, museum visitors are taken to a level of reality where they are allowed to “play” with the many elements present, with the visitor acting him/herself as one of the elements being “played” in the reflexive experience. Play, which in English can relate to a game or dance, also has the sense of an “exercise of oneself” (Turner, 1982, p. 33). Play in ritual or theater manifests itself through work and by actors involved in a shared activity. In museums, when the audience becomes the actors, the performance of the selves involved in a shared experience results in the expression of true ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 24 Museums as Theme Parks: from the Informational Paradigm to the Reflexive Experience identities – and in the notion that identities are also practical categories. At the same time, in a theatrical act or “social drama” (Turner, 1988), the individual is at once himself and another. The individual is divided between being and not-being, in a reflexive and subjective experience. As we have demonstrated, the breach between subject and object, human and non-human, society and heritage, etc., is indeed an artificial one, and museums cannot be considered to be reduced to this traditional relation of “man” to “reality”. That is because, as anthropology has confirmed in several studies, persons can be things and things can be persons in many different contexts, situations, and performances. The present paper is an invitation for museology researchers to think of museums, things, concepts, and experiences as if they were deeply bound to persons, subjects, and societies, because in fact they are. Redirecting museology towards metamuseology: the configuration of a reflexive human science In 1983, at the ICOFOM annual symposium in London, John Hodge exclaimed: What we need is someone to outline a theory in finite terms which we all understand. Its philosophy, its statement of propositions used as principles of explanation for phenomena etc. needs to be clearly stated with concrete examples so that there is no misunderstanding of what is meant. Only then will we be able to have progressive discussion. (Hodge, 1983, p. 61) In the very moment when social sciences are questioning their fundamental principles and confronted with the ‘truth’ that there are no ‘truths’ in empirical studies, thinkers inside ICOFOM seemed to claim a single truth capable of providing an immediate systematic theory for museology. According to Joanna Overing (1985), who explores the recent crisis of faith in philosophy over the empiricist’s paradigm of rationality, within systematically analytical studies, the idea of a “single world” is being challenged. Turning to look at themselves and their own actions, social scientists reveal that the world – from the perspective of our knowledge of it – is how we view it through the paradigms we create. These researchers, differing from philosophers who are not usually asking social questions, are asking about “moral universes” – in Overing’s terms – their basic duty being to understand the intentions and objectives of actors within particular social worlds (Overing,1985, p. 2). Contrary to modern Western ‘science’ and the attendant proposition that truth is amoral and facts are autonomous from value, facts and truths can be analyzed as being tied to different sets of social, moral, and political values. Thus, all truths have their moral aspect; to hope to find universal and independent criteria for truth has proven to be an unreachable goal that suits only thinkers who are still defending their control over reality construction. The cognitive powers of Western thought in controlling and knowing the material world are at the base for museums, but they cannot be the foundation of contemporary museology. Gradually, what is being perceived with the possibility of a ‘science of the science’ is the fact that Rationality works as a limiting tool for the analytical viewpoint Bruno Brulon Soares 25 over the Others and especially over him/herself. The Western fetishism for epistemological objects such as ‘reason’, ‘truth’, and ‘knowledge’ – or even the ‘museum’ – is little by little demolishing the ways we relate to moralities and epistemologies different from our own. Throughout most of the 20 century, in the early years of the development of museology around the world, the thinkers of the ‘museum’ were not separated from their supposed subject of study. Museum professionals were the ones conceiving ‘museology’. The separation between researchers and their subject of study – which is usually constructed by specific methods – has not been fully accomplished in museology, and maybe still isn’t to this day. Perhaps the reason we are still unable to define the subject of museology is that we are so close to museums we remain their faithful hostages. th What differentiates, though, ‘museology’ from ‘museum theory’ or ‘museum studies’ is the desire of the first to be acknowledged as the systematic approach in the context in which this term is being used. In order for that to happen, a methodological distance must be created between researchers and their subject of study. The theory of museology produced in the past forty years is neither a product of museum practice nor the mere expression of a few philosophers’ ideas disseminated from Eastern Europe. In fact, the theory is the result of a reflection developed by these thinkers confronted with certain museum practices in the different contexts in which they acted. Methodologically speaking, the agents who make museums, and their agencies, must be studied by the theoreticians and researchers of museology today. Nevertheless, when the same people play both roles – the empirical researcher who is also the museum professional – objective distance will depend on exercising reflexivity on his/her own museum practice. Here the museum will be clearly separated from the museological with the artifice of performance. The first works on museology, by ICOFOM theorists, were just theory and not systematically analytical studies because they consisted of mere reflections – lacking the reflexivity that is, in part, the acknowledgement of performance in the constructed truths. The study of museum performance today allows any analytical researcher to see him/herself as an actor on the stage of the museum representations. Such reflexivity in the making of social science may reveal itself to be a process that includes self-knowledge and the revision of paradigms. Over the years, the invention of unilateral relations or realities that can be “touched with a finger” (Bourdieu, 1992, p. 228) has long been common for social scientists, who preferred to deal with these well-defined concepts instead of with the overall conception of the concepts. In museology, the invention of philosophical truthshas caused a series of misunderstandings among theorists. This confusion was due to the limited empirical reality behind the associations considered by those who made these assumptions. After the early 1980s and the first superficial attempts to summarize a theory for museology, some authors (Teather, 1983; van Mensch, 1992) pointed to a more realistic solution for a methodical museology. Research was the answer. The truth of the matter is that ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 26 Museums as Theme Parks: from the Informational Paradigm to the Reflexive Experience no philosophical ‘magic’ would create a social ‘science’ or its subject without a considerable amount of empirical and theoretical research. What substantially prevents the existence of a ‘science’ called ‘museology’ remains the fact that its theoretical production and methods are marked by the Cartesian idea of the ‘museum’, designed – as a metaphor and literally – in the rationalist system of knowledge fabricated in Western Modernity. In this ‘museum’ that organized objects and ideas – or ideas as objects – ‘things’ were created to be put on the shelves of knowledge in order to be observed, organized, counted, weighed, and measured by the encyclopedic empiricist. Man was very much separated from things, and things were fully dominated as passive objects in the gnosiologic relationship. Museology, born in the interior of this kind of museums, and conceived by the professionals working in these institutions, has inherited their dogmas. For subjects that strongly desire to control their own part of reality – as with human sciences in general – the notion according to which human beings invent their own reality is debated with certain difficulty even today. The discussion of a specific method for museology raises two fundamental questions: first, “how does museology mold the practice?” and second, “how does the practice mold museology?” Certainly, museology cannot be the discipline that studies the limited and undefined universe of the museum. The very concept of the ‘museum’ used to explain heterogeneous experiences, to which theorists refer as a “phenomenon” related to the terms “museology”, “museography”, “theory of museum”, “museistic” (Stránský, 1980, p. 43), and so on …, is flagrantly an artifice of method, created to justify the existence of an empirical museology. Beyond this tautological conception, the practice available for actual research escapes any kind of ‘museum’ characterization. By considering the study of the mediations that formalize the wide process of musealization – which may be mistaken for the process of declaring heritage, when we accept the viewpoint of a “heritology” – we then have a concrete empirical field for museology. It is thus clear that an effective social science may conceive musealization as an agency and all the persons and objects involved in it as agents. To find the tracing of these associations would be the work of the museologist (who is not the museum professional but the social scientist). As the epistemologist who thinks about “the meaning of meaning”, or the psychologist who thinks about how people think, the museologist can be seen as the one who thinks about the museological “thinking” – and in this sense Stránský wouldn’t be wrong for suggesting the existence of “meta-theoretical problems” for this “science” (Stránský, 1980, p. 44). The clear path to a reflexive museology would be, in our perspective, understanding metamuseology as the consciousness of museology, working in a philosophical way to pose museological questions and to interrogate the different realities where ‘musealization’ (whatever it is called) is conceived. By focusing on the study of performances and associations, this area of study becomes less attached to the ‘museum’ as an absolute object and more concerned with the construction ofmuseums’ representations. The museum performance would work as a Bruno Brulon Soares 27 measurement or standard representation to be studied in the different contexts in which it is evoked, from the Louvre to the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, which share a belief in this historically idealized categorization. If the study of museology is museology, thus the classical rationalist pretension of the museum’s absolute objectivity must be left aside, making space for a relative objectivity that considers the museum representation according to the agents’ agencies. Furthermore, it is mandatory to accept that the museum as a philosophical entity depends on the specific categories and institutions from the West, and that universalization of the concept is not realistic. From the gnosiological paradigm introduced by Stránský and Gregorová, we depart towards a reflexive paradigm that supposes the re-evaluation of the very constitution of paradigms. As other human sciences, museology must be reassembled as a subject of mediations in order to act on the transition between its own representations and the representations of the actors it studies. References Baraçal, A. B. (2008). O objeto da museologia: a via conceitual aberta por Zbynek Zbyslav Stránský [The subject of museology: the conceptual perspective of Zbynek Zbyslav Stránský] (Dissertation). Programa de Pós-Graduação em Museologia e Patrimônio, UNIRIO/MAST, Rio de Janeiro. Bourdieu, P. (1992). The practice of reflexive sociology (The Paris Workshop).In Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (Eds.).An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Carroll, L.(1999 [1872]). Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice found there. Mineola & New York: Dover Publications. Hodge, J. (1983). 'Basic paper'.Methodology of museology and professional training.ICOFOM Study Series, 1, 58-65. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to ActorNetwork-Theory.New York: Oxford University Press. Maroević, I. (2004). Museology as a part of Information Sciences.In Maroević, I. Into the world with the cultural heritage.Museology.Conservation.Architecture. (pp. 15-16). Petrinja: Matica hrvatska. MuWoP: Museological Working Papers/DoTraM: Documents de Travail en Muséologie (1980).Museology – Science or just practical museum work? Stockholm: ICOM, International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM; Museum of National Antiquities, vol. 1. MuWoP: Museological Working Papers/DoTraM: Documents de Travail en Muséologie(1981).Interdisciplinarity in Museology. Stockholm: ICOM, International Committee for Museology/ICOFOM/Museum of National Antiquities, vol. 2. Overing,J. (1985). Preface & Introduction.In Overing,J. (Ed.).Reason and Morality.(pp. viii-28).London: Tavistock (A.S.A. Monographs 24). Seeger, A. (1990). Apresentação: imagens no espelho. [Presentation: images in the mirror.] In Seeger, A. (Ed.). Os índios e nós.Estudos sobre sociedades tribais brasileiras. [The Indians and us.Studies on the Brazilian tribal societies.] (pp. 13-21).Rio de Janeiro: Campus. Šola, T. (1992).A contribution to a possible definition of museology. Paris. Retrieved from www.heritology.com.Consulted on March 8, 2014. Stranský, Z. Z. (1965). Predmet muzeologie.In Z. Z. Stranský (Ed.).Sborník materiálu prvého muzeologického sympozia.(pp. 30-33). Brno: Museu da Morávia. Teather, L. (1983). Some brief notes on the methodological problems of museological research. ICOFOM Study Series, 5, 1-9. Turner, V. (1982).From ritual to theatre.The human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ Publications. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 28 Museums as Theme Parks: from the Informational Paradigm to the Reflexive Experience Turner, V. (1988).The Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publications. van Mensch, P. (1992). Towards a methodology of museology (PhD thesis).University of Zagreb. Abstract This paper discusses the definition of museology as a form of information science and analyzes the accepted definitions for museological study. It intends to point out some inconsistencies in the philosophical Stranskyan museology in order to reformulate the notion of its subject of study. This debate will require revision of a philosophical perspective through a sociological viewpoint in light of the actor-network theory proposed by Bruno Latour. Finally, the paper maintains that the man-reality relation forged in the West as a hegemonic museum performance should not define museology’s subject. Otherwise, it should consider all kinds of possible associations among the different roles that are played, evolving from a corpus of reflections on the museum to a reflexive museology that has musealization in the center of its studies. Keywords: Museum, Performance. Museology, Information sciences,Reflexivity, Resumen El artículo discute la definición de la museología como una ciencia de la información y analiza las definiciones conocidas del objeto de estudio museológico. El texto se propone a marcar algunas de las inconsistencias en la museología filosófica stranskiana en la búsqueda de reformular la noción del suyo objeto de estudio. Ese debate exigirá una revisión en esa abordaje filosófica por medio de un punto de vista sociológico teniendo en cuenta la teoría actor-rede propuesta por Bruno Latour. Finalmente, el artículo aboga que la relación hombre-realidad construida en el Occidente como una performance museal hegemónica non debe servir para definir el objeto de estudio de la museología. Por el contrario, la definición debe considerar todos los tipos de asociaciones entre los diferentes papeles interpretados, avanzando de un corpus de reflexiones sobre el museo para la museología reflexiva que tiene la musealisación en el centro de los suyos estudios. Palabras clave: Museo, Museología, información,Reflexividad, Performance. Ciencias de la Museology exploring the concept of MLA (MuseumsLibraries-Archives) and probing its interdisciplinarity Bruno Brulon Soares Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO) – Brazil Kerstin Smeds Umeå universitet, Sweden Introduction In a world where social relations and knowledge are mediated more and more by data, institutions like museums, libraries, and archives – recognized for mediating and transforming information – have been grappling with enabling individuals’ access to information and information literacy. Museums, libraries, and archives are institutions that create, maintain, and alter different kinds of information systems, each for their specific purposes. To explore the differences and similarities among these institutions, and the academic disciplines that study them, should prove to be a profitable exercise. All three institutions provide information resources for their visitors and users, but they do it in different ways. Information centers are generally supposed to be transparent, to guarantee easy access to all their resources. In this respect, libraries and archives have profited greatly from modern digital technology. Museums, too, develop more and more digital affordances. For about twenty years, museology has been often related to Library and Archive Studies. How would museology examine the concept of MLA (Museums-Libraries-Archives) as a recently integrated field of study? How could museology contribute to the theoretical analysis of the entire MLA field? What is, then, the specificity of the museum in the MLA field? In comparison to archives and libraries, what is the individual identity of the museum institution and the museum as th media? These and many related questions were pondered at the 38 Annual ICOFOM symposium in Tsukuba, Japan, in September 2015. Seven papers and one note were chosen for publication; those by Bruno Soares and Ann Davis are included as editorial views and were not part of the double-blind peer review system. Contemporary museums are often more concerned with engaging their visitors, seeing to their needs and experiences, than with their collections and traditional documentation. Museums are not only research centers or centers of information, but they ‘create’ history and information in their representations by using the objects as the ‘substratum’ of their creation – an approach also made by libraries and archives. Consequently, museology too creates new theoretical, interdisciplinary approaches and ideas in analyzing the museum as a cultural institution. What are the similarities and differences among museums, archives, and libraries, as well as among Museology, Library Studies, and Archive Studies as academic disciplines? Why do cultural policies in many countries identify all three by the same paradigm? 30 Museology exploring the concept of MLA (Museums -Libraries-Archives) and probing its interdisciplinarity One of the ways by which museums, archives, and libraries deal with information is through ICT (information and communication technology) and the integration of digital technology in exhibitions and programs, in order to broaden their abilities to establish communication and interpretation between people and things. Conveying knowledge has been a common theme in contemporary Museology, and communication has to an increasing degree moved into cyberspace. How would these new forms of mediation, communication, and technology change the way these institutions conceive themselves? All three institutions today create exhibitions in order to attract audiences. On the other hand, museums – with their collections – differ from the other two institutions in one crucial way: they communicate a wide range of information based on differing interpretive levels. Museums are also the only media institutions where the visitor/user moves his/her physical body in the midst of the medium, relating in an immediate way to materiality, and sometimes changing the medium and message with their very presence and their entanglement with space and material. Museums are allowed to ‘play’ hide and seek with their objects, using lights, shadows, sounds and theater to engage their visitors in a meaningful performance. Archives and libraries appear to be transparent institutions charged with collecting documents, as if a one-to-one correspondence between the objects and more or less fixed meanings were possible. By contrast, museums are understood to be institutions that interpret and represent. At universities, museology is often considered as a part of social sciences, heritage studies, anthropology, or information sciences – disregarding its specificity as an autonomous discipline. In which particular ways can a museological approach and museological theory (or theories) be useful for other disciplines and academic fields? And vice versa. From its start, museology has been defined as an interdisciplinary field of research. What is this interdisciplinarity all about, and how could we benefit from it? Apart from interdisciplinarity, the very notion of museology is also being questioned and discussed, and its institutional specificity sometimes is being merged with others; e.g. in some countries, museology has been merged to heritology or critical heritage studies (e.g. Sweden, many East European countries). With museums so diverse and museology broadening its scope, can we understand clearly what museology is as a specific field of study? Do we still need museology and if so, why? Interpreting the Museum as a social phenomenon, which connects humans and non-humans, or people and things, subjects and objects by the act of mediation, museology in the past few decades has gained new perspectives and a renewed field of studies for its theories and practices. After the movement of New Museology and its assimilation to the main discipline, the theorists of museology have been confronted with the social functions and responsibilities of the Museum. Going beyond the investigation of the museums’ main functions (preservation, research, and communication) or its traditional role to produce and transmit information as knowledge, this theme has the purpose of interrogating how museums and museology have been dealing with the social impacts of their actions. Understanding knowledge transfer as a social process in itself, this Bruno Brulon Soares and Kerstin Smeds 31 topic is mainly related to current research concerned with tracing the connections produced by museums or musealization, and its social implications. * This journal presents a variety of theoretical approaches to the topic, Museology exploring the concept of MLA, from distinguished points of view marked by the authors’ different professional backgrounds and socio-cultural contexts. It is a testimony to the real diversity of the International Committee for Museology. As an editorial note, and in an effort to delineate the topic provocatively, Bruno Brulon Soares of Brazil presents a reflexive analysis on museology, discussing its status as a discipline and its subject of study in light of theoretical approaches developed by its main thinkers since the 1970s. This author distances himself from the information and objective perspectives, proposing instead museums as social agents that produce playful cultural performances, analogous to how theme parks represent social reality. By comparing museums with theme parks and highlighting the value of reflexive experience, this analysis aims to deconstruct the notion of museums as information institutions and proposes a new frame for museology’s subject of study. As a result, museology appears to be oriented to the study of what is produced by museums or of what produces them (called museality or musealization in some literature), proving to be closer to a social science rather than the information sciences, as some past theorists of these disciplines have insisted. In a second editorial note, Ann Davis, Canada, explores two humanistic theories that examine communication and interaction problems in museums, libraries, and archives, starting with Zygmunt Bauman’s emphasis on physical space. Discussing the realities of living in an age of uncertainty, Bauman turns to a sense of place in the production of meaning and identity. Central to this idea is an emphasis on society, on people, rather than technology, a new humanism that defines progress in social terms, with technology and collections playing supporting roles. Second, following Martin Heidegger and John Dewey, separation of mind and body is rejected in favour of uniting thinking and action. The theory of embodied cognition posits that the workings of the mind and body are intertwined to a far greater degree than previously understood. Here the generation effect, learning by generating or doing – rather than simply observing, is important. These two theories help to clarify some of the very real contemporary challenges faced by museums, libraries, and archives and to suggest possible solutions. Among the peer-reviewed articles, Zarka Vujic and Helena Stublic from Zagreb University in Croatia first examine how museology was seen as part of information science in Croatia in the mid-1960s. That period saw the establishment of the Postgraduate Program in Museology, which was run parallel with programsin librarianship and documentation science. The second part of the paper gives a critical overview of the unique conference, Archives, Libraries and Museums: Possibilities of Collaboration in the Environment of Global Information Infrastructure that has been held in Croatia annually since 1996. The conference influenced views on the convergence of the disciplines. Even though the institutions and their related disciplines have numerous activities, research phenomena, and ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 32 Museology exploring the concept of MLA (Museums -Libraries-Archives) and probing its interdisciplinarity methodologies in common, there are evidently differences between them that need to be respected. Norma Avila and Federico Gómez, Mexico, explore in their article how the museum reshapes our relations with the sensitive information submitted to us. They approach these relations from two aspects: first, the documentation of a community project to identify the specific consequences of a musealization process; and secondly, the concept of "community space" understood as a transition from a system of communication-diffusion to that of communicationinteraction. The community space, according to the authors, is configured as a dialogue on identity and otherness, which allows reflexive overviews, creating a meta-reality. This reflexivity will permit us to understand how we signify that meta-reality.It reveals how we look to ourselves byobserving the museum sphere as an ethical exercise of memory and knowledge. Alejandro Sabido, Mexico, presents an analysis of the ontological dimension of codices in museums, libraries, and archives. To analyze museums in relation to archives and libraries, codices are examined as entities that have been part of collections. The ancient Aztec word Amoxotoca, "follow the path of the book,” gives way to a kind of ontological production that happens in museums. To develop this analysis, the author refers to the philosophy of science and how it answers the question of “what is?” He also examines the extent to which this question is determined by context. Jennifer Harris, Australia, sees textual dangers in MLA convergence. Confusingly, all three types of institution have a rationalist epistemological background, and they all work now from an epistemology of unstable, politicized meaning. The similarities, however, mask significant differences. Although all three institutions collect and catalogue, the deliberate acts of representation undertaken by museums to construct narratives mark them as fundamentally different from the other two. Harris argues that museums have changed paradigms, moving away from their longterm institutional companions. Convergence is likely to endanger the textual advances achieved by museums. Francisca Hernández Hernández, Spain, takes an epistemological theoretical approach, conceiving of museology as an intellectual exercise that helps us establish open dialogue with other systems of thought, such as the social sciences and information and communication sciences. At this point, the question arises as to whether or not museology shares the same objectives as these disciplines. The author suggests museology is a social science that encompasses the museum object as a document that transmits information and knowledge on reality, and which constitutes itself as a support for constructing collective memory. For this reason, museology cannot ignore those other subjects that deal with the documentation of memory. She ponders the role played by the archival and library sciences within the field of museology. The answer can only be that these social sciences must be regarded as true documentary sources of museology. Tereza Scheiner and Luciana Menezes de Carvalho, Brazil, also explore the interdisciplinarity of museology. The question is: Why has museology established itself as an interdisciplinary field from its inception? In order to answer this question, Scheiner and Carvalho focus on the following topics: firstly, a reflection on the concept of Bruno Brulon Soares and Kerstin Smeds 33 discipline and interdisciplinarity, using Bourdieu and Burke for a theoretical framework; secondly, a case study analysis of the Rio de Janeiro postgraduate program in Museology and Heritage and its interdisciplinary dialogues. The final consideration is the importance of professionals and academics in the museological field in setting its boundaries and building its interdisciplinary dialogues. Daniel Schmitt, France, takes an enactive approach to museology. During their visit to a museum, visitors show a surprisingly creative ability to bind or connect to a reality that they largely construct themselves. Successfully analyzing the articulation of these links is an analytical interest that goes beyond the museum field because these links inform the construction modalities of knowledge in an ecological situation. The theory of enaction provides a fruitful conceptual framework to study museology as an operative relationship between visitors and reality. Shuchen Wang from Aalto University, Finland, presents some brief but important notes on an “ecosystem” of museum communication and documentation in the digital age. Ubiquitous computing technology, Wang notes, may realize Malraux’s 1947 proposal of a museum without walls. Previously grounded on materiality, museum communication andeducation embarks on new frontiers with digitization. Cloud, linked data, semantic web, online exhibition, mobile application, e-publication, augmented reality, interactive display, gamification, 3D scanning and printing – all these cuttingedge technologies contribute to a vision that the visitor/end-user can visit any cultural site at anytime and from anywhere. As ideal as it sounds, the journey is still paved with obstacles due to unsynchronized technical, financial, administrative, and legislative systems – all factors to be dealt with and solved before we reach this goal. All the papers presented for this issue of ICOFOM Study Series were direct responses to ICOFOM’s probing the links among museums, libraries, and archives. As a result, thinking of MLA as a field illuminates some of the insecurities we struggle with in museology, when we look from the inside to the outside and to other contemporary disciplines and areas of knowledge. The suggestion to discuss our boundaries is an invitation to reflect on the very status of museology today. The papers presented here tried to open new windows on the topic, as well as revisiting some others that were not fully explored in the past. We hope reading this publication will provoke continuing discussion and raise new questions. We wish you a very good read! May 2016 Kerstin Smeds and Bruno Brulon Soares ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Papers Articles Artículos 36 Museology as Part of Information and Communication Sciences in Croatia: a View on a Thirty-Year-Long Experience Žarka Vujić and Helena Stublić Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Croatia Introduction As early as 1983, museology was established in Croatia as an empirical discipline forming part of information science together with librarianship, archive and documentation sciences, lexicology, and the like. When information science became officially acknowledged, it was defined as the discipline concerned with systematic study of emission, collection, selection, evaluation, processing, storage, retrieval, transmission, distribution, explanation, use and protection of information, as well as with all forms of social communication. (Maroević, 1998, p. 93) It is not our intention to explore this concept further here but to point out that we have always had a widest possible understanding of information science, which is similar to W. Boyd Rayward's description of the same field of research as a composite of disciplinary chunks (1996, p. 7). The year 1984 saw the formation of the Museology Sub-Department, which has been functioning ever since as a constituent part of the Department of Information Sciences at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb. An undergraduate museology programme was launched two years later in addition to programmes of other aforementioned disciplines. It is therefore not surprising that we found the main topic and even sub-topics of this year’s ICOFOM conference exceptionally close to us, but challenging as well. As part of the museology staff of the department, we think that it is necessary to re-examine the position of our discipline in relation to information and communication sciences and to determine whether they still provide a fertile ground and motivation for further development. However, before we pay more attention to that issue, we will attempt to paint a clearer picture to those unfamiliar with the development of perspectives through which museology is seen in Croatia as part of information and communication sciences. Historical View of Information-Based Affiliation The person who made efforts to prepare the ground for such understanding and acknowledgement of museology was Antun Bauer (1911-2000), a collector and museologist, who founded numerous museums in Croatia, established a unique documentation institution – the Museum Documentation Centre in Zagreb – and launched the first Croatian museological journals (Museology, Informatica Museologica). In 1966, he also established the Postgraduate Programme in Museology as part of the Postgraduate Programme in Librarianship and Documentation Science. This new environment in which museology found itself clearly speaks about the 38 Museology as Part of Information and Communication Sciences in Croatia: a View on a Thirty-Year-Long Experience change in its academic position. From an elective course that had been taught since 1950 within the art history programme, museology developed into an autonomous postgraduate programme in a group of research fields that were, simply put, related to collection, documentation, and dissemination of documents and information. Equally representative of this context, we think, was Bauer's first lecture given to students of the aforementioned postgraduate 1 programme . The centre of his interest was not the museum institution and its functions but collections and individual museum objects. It is important to mention here that Bauer thought of the museum object as the object of knowledge, for only as such could it enter the museum as a form of document, and only with this quality could it have value. Bauer adopted this view after reading about similar ideas proposed by Teodor Schmidt, a professor at Leningrad University, in a well-known survey conducted in Paris and published 2 in a 1931 issue of Revue Magazine . In addition, Bauer stressed both the historical and documentary meaning of artefacts that were, according to him, essential for their entrance into museum collections. Although he did not give an explicit name to these meanings, it was clearly not far from the concept of ‘museality’ that became an exceptionally important foothold for Central European museology in the late 1960s. Bauer also addressed the subject-object duality of the museum object. He differentiated between the museum object as object – the thing containing the value that museum visitors perceive (mostly works of art) – and the museum object as subject – the thing that indirectly takes part in the process of representation when placed in certain contexts or grouped with other exhibits. Although Bauer did not precisely define museology as a discipline in 1966, he continued writing about this field of study, claiming that it essentially relied on documentation – a characteristic that made museology inseparable from documentation and librarianship. There is no doubt that Bauer was close in his understanding of museology to a group of museologists from East Germany (German Democratic Republic) who published their theses on so-called museum science in the journal Museumkunde in 1964. For them, museum science was an autonomous discipline that belonged to the field of documentation, together with archives and libraries. They clearly found a common denominator in information and documentation practices that drew on related professions and consequently disciplines that started to develop their theoretical frameworks around these practices. Unlike Antun Bauer, Professor Ivo Maroević (1937-2007), an esteemed ICOFOM member, did in fact turn to information science as a basis for his own theorizing on museology as a ‘scientific’ discipline, its research subject, and fundamental concepts. From 1983 to 1993, the year which saw the publication of his book Introduction to Museology, Maroević worked on a definition and key concepts of a certain museological system by using tenets set forth by European museologists, primarily Peter van Mensch and Zbynek Stransky, and the then-leading theoretician of information science in Croatia, Miroslav Tuđman. The lecture was published in the journal Museology, No 6, 1967, pp 6-21. We have here interpreted its most important propositions. 2 More about this can be found in our paper on visitor research in socialist Croatia soon to be published in the ICOFOM book on visitors. 1 ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Žarka Vujić and Helena Stublić 39 Drawing on the works and theories of Tuđman, Maroević proposed: a model of the museum object as sign; the differences between information, documentation, and communication-based approaches to the museum object as sign; the differences between cultural and scientific information; and the differences between presentation and representation of knowledge in relation to the museum exhibition, etc. He presented his approach at annual ICOFOM meetings, which he regularly used to disseminate his views but also to examine them critically. When looking at his work from today's perspective, more than three decades later, we can say with certainty that there has not been a single theoretician of related disciplines in Croatia, primarily library and archive sciences, who adopted Tuđman's premises to such an extent as Maroević did in his interdisciplinary work. Unfortunately, time has shown that many of the aforementioned museological premises were never applied to the museum practice, which, in our opinion, should have happened since it is something extremely important for an analytical discipline. It also seems that some of the concepts (above all the differences between information, documentation and communication-based approaches to the museum object) were enclosed within themselves. In other words, they did not encourage further development of museological thought. At the same time, a paradigmatic shift occurred in Croatian information sciences, within which the communication aspect (theories of communication) developed and strengthened to such a degree that the name of the very empirical field was changed into information and communication sciences. Among Maroević’s museological tenets that have remained in use, we have focused on the model of the museum object as sign and changed it by introducing the element that assigns meaning and creates a sign (Vujić, 1999, p. 202-203). Naturally, that element is a human being and we call him or her interpreter – a term we find most appropriate for this context. The role of interpreter can be equally played by different agents – those who take artefacts from the real environment and proclaim them heritage, museum and heritage professionals who research and present them in various ways, and, finally, visitors for whom the previous activities are done. There is no doubt that, in the late 1990s, we started strengthening the position of visitors in Croatia. There have also been efforts to introduce a social semiotic approach in research, which is much more present today owing to young researchers at the SubDepartment (Miklošević, 2014). This is, naturally, not surprising because today there are disciplines that largely do research in social media and communication. The ALM annual conference as a place for contemplating the disciplines and convergence of related practices In the mid-1990s, the Croatian cultural and academic community witnessed the organisation of the first ALM conference, which played a key role for the development of museology. It also allowed for the establishment of a dialogue between museology and other disciplines within information and communication sciences, and ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 40 Museology as Part of Information and Communication Sciences in Croatia: a View on a Thirty-Year-Long Experience above all archive and library sciences. It was a unique conference organised in South Eastern Europe called Archives, Libraries and Museums: Possibilities of Cooperation in the Environment of Global Information Infrastructure. The conference was first held in 1996 by the Croatian community of librarians (we are all familiar with the driving nature of these heritage institutions), who realized the need to open up libraries to other related institutions by redefining their main issues. They included the concept of library material and its documentation, especially the principles and rules of cataloguing, a model for documentation via information system, research of library users, and so on. Museum and archive communities readily accepted this invitation to cooperation. Researchers of the related disciplines were, understandably, at the forefront of the entire event. The first conference was the occasion at which Ivo Maroević presented one of his most significant theoretical contributions to museology in the 1990s – a definition of (collected) items in museums, libraries, and archives for which he used his model of the museum object as sign. For him, the value of the museum object is determined equally by three components – material (reflects the duration of the object through time), form (reflects the existence and dissemination of the object's messages in space), and meaning (reflects the entrance of the object into the awareness and 3 knowledge of the community) . Archival material depends above all on the material and meaning, while form can be transformed into other media and used as such. The most important component of books, with the exception of old and rare ones, is content or meaning contained in them, whereas material and form are less important. Professor Maroević was aware of this simplified view of archival, library, and museum material, but thought that it still pointed to the differences between them in an appropriate though very general way. Today, we would say this: if he had introduced into his view people as members of societies and social life and taken into consideration their need to experience collected items, maybe he would have reached the conclusion that this social need may be their strongest common ground. For example, if users need the materiality of an archival document, they will approach it in a similar way as they would a museum object. If museum visitors need content or information contained in the museum object in order to understand it, they will focus exactly on those aspects of the object. Ivo Maroević introduced three types of environments into the examination of collected items in AKM institutions: the real environment of material things, the controlled environment of ALM institutions, and the virtual environment. For Maroević, museums adopt a midway position between the real and controlled environments because they receive objects taken from the real environment. Archives are on a more abstract level in relation to the real environment, in that they collect material from exactly that environment, but, as Maroević correctly points out, the material is already defined and structured (through different media in archival fonds). Libraries found themselves, according to him, on a more abstract level of the controlled environment, approaching the borderline of the virtual environment. Their material also comes from the real environment but it represents formatted knowledge and Maroević considered museum objects as exclusively three-dimensional, and he disregarded intangible heritage (Maroević, 1998, p. 6). 3 ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Žarka Vujić and Helena Stublić 41 artistic expression (fiction books, for example) whose digitized versions enter the virtual environment the fastest (Maroević, 1998, p. 6). Graphic Representation of Individual Institutions in Relation to Three Environments However, the work of ALM institutions does not only consist of dealing with collected items, but also with information about the items and about other phenomena. According to Maroević, all information is contained in the virtual environment, which allows for the most effective cooperation of all the institutions from the controlled environment. His position is understandable today since, in 1996, he would have not been able to take into consideration objects and phenomena created in the virtual environment (in other words, digitally born objects, web art, digital archives and so on) which today completely alter his pyramid scheme. The ALM conference in Croatia has become a unique platform for questioning the common ground and its further exploration. A positive result of the conference is a series of conference proceedings with interesting and stimulating contributions, on the bases of which it is possible to see changes in the position and understanding of common topics in all activities done by the three institutions, and indirectly the accompanying academic disciplines. In the early years of conference-related collaboration, it was logical to agree on types of items and a common platform of information science and education of information professionals. Soon after, the focus shifted to computer-based documentation (both descriptive and ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 42 Museology as Part of Information and Communication Sciences in Croatia: a View on a Thirty-Year-Long Experience subject cataloguing: vocabulary control and data standards) and to common topics initiated by the growing presence of ALM institutions in the virtual environment – metadata (primarily Dublin Core, harmonization of different metadata standards) and digitization. The thing we consider exceptionally valuable for museology and st museums is a turn in the first years of the 21 century towards collections and collection-level description instead of individual objects. Collections have been seen as a strong link among the institutions and academic disciplines After almost 15 years of ALM activities in Croatia, interests of the sector were turned towards another important topic – that of users (or visitors, as a term more appropriate for museums) and the need to research them. For that reason, a wide range of social science methods was adopted and tested. These developments reveal the influence that the need for social responsibility and the global and local economic crisis exerted on the Croatian cultural sector. These new research methods were also applied to the ALM conference. After the first ten years of its organisation, a group of researchers analysed and evaluated the conference through quantitative research of information related to presenters and their topics. An analysis of the number of papers in relation to specific professional fields showed that the largest number of papers came from librarians who, in fact, had been the initiators of the ALM conference. An analysis of topics showed what had already been expected, that authors presented works most frequently related to the topics pertaining to their own professional fields. However, it was evident that librarians and archivists participated in the conference with topics equally relevant for their individual disciplines and for the entire ALM community. In contrast, authors who dealt with museum or museology related topics addressed members of the museum community rather than the entire sector (Aparac-Jelušić, Faletar Tanacković,& Pehar, 2010, pp. 25-26). Another interesting study was presented at the conference, exploring co-operation between Croatian cultural and heritage institutions and with other educational institutions and important public and private organisations. The study showed that, among all ALM institutions, archives were the most cooperative with other heritage institutions (84.6% with other archives, 76.9% with museums, and 46.2% with libraries). On the other hand, libraries came first in cooperation with education institutions, such as elementary (90.6%) and secondary schools (57.8%) and kindergartens (78.7%), and to a lesser extent with other libraries (52%), museums (40.2%), and archives (13.4%). Interestingly, museums most frequently entered into collaboration with other museums (89%) and, for example, elementary schools (68.3%), while cooperation with libraries (35.4%) and archives (31.7%) was on the bottom of the list (Faletar Tanacković & Badurina, 2009, p. 39). These two studies suggest the extent to which cooperation existed among researchers in individual disciplines and institutions of the ALM sector. The cooperation was and still is possible, but is also limited by particular characteristics of each profession. Archives and libraries often serve as information resources to museums for their activities (this is especially evident in the work of specialized museum libraries and archives). However, the reverse is not often the case. Museums rarely provide their material, activities, or services merely as support to libraries or archives. Interpretation of museum and heritage objects and phenomena is a particular feature ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Žarka Vujić and Helena Stublić 43 of museums. In contrast, libraries and archives are more related to information services. It has taken us a while to realize that significant difference. Interpreting the History of Museology Sub-Department in Zagreb through Exhibition It was at the first ALM conference, where experiences with visitor research were shared for the first time, that we came to realize the key difference between museums on the one hand and libraries and archives on the other. Surrounded with archive and library professionals, we were constantly exposed to their terminology, such as information institutions, information services, and so on. We finally realized that museums, galleries, and similar institutions were not primarily concerned with providing access to physical and digitized items for the sake of their content and information they carry. That is primarily the task of information institutions. Museums are principally interpretive institutions. Although they enable visitors to encounter the material they collect and protect, and give access to items in study collections mostly to researchers, museums use various interpretive strategies to shape different communication products for their visitors – exhibitions in physical and virtual spaces, different museum publications, educational materials, and the like. Following that thought, we altered Maroević's understanding of museology, which can be understood in Croatia today in terms of the following definition: Museology belongs to the field of information and communication sciences and it investigates meanings and identities (resulting from the construction) of heritage, its protection, interpretation, and communication, as well as forms of institutional activities that are based on these functions (even museums), in order to maintain sustainable social use of heritage and well-being. What can be criticized about the ALM conference is the fact that the organizers never initiated a single joint project, even though commonality and shared practices across the sector were discussed on many levels and from different perspectives! Nor have they developed a much-needed tool for vocabulary control, or a jointly created virtual content (aside from the conference website). However, part of the responsibility rests with us since we have been participating in certain activities of the ALM conference as well. We might be able to offer some compensation in the form of supervision over student theses; information science students, ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 44 Museology as Part of Information and Communication Sciences in Croatia: a View on a Thirty-Year-Long Experience particularly those studying museology and librarianship, have written the best papers in terms of topics that bring together the practical work of institutions and research methodologies of different disciplines. They are mostly MA students (whose theses include topics such as Museum Libraries in Zagreb, Museum Archives, Exhibition as Form of Communication in Schools) but PhD students as well (theses such as Models of Cooperation between Croatian Heritage Institutions). In conclusion By its very nature and definition, museology is an interdisciplinary discipline; it is therefore not surprising that museologists working in the Information Science Department are often predisposed toward interdisciplinary methodologies and research on the convergence of practical and theoretical work. For example, they can contribute to study programmes by offering courses such as Heritage Institutions, Exhibition in School Libraries, and the like. Nevertheless, we find it necessary to explore further the common characteristics of the disciplines within information and communication sciences. Without that, and without a more significant development of the department in the direction of media and communication, joint growth may not be possible. By looking at the present research topics and interests of active Croatian museologists (creation of heritage, heritage literacy, interpretation and interpretive strategies, and the like), it seems that museology as both a research discipline and study programme is ready to move closer to heritage studies (Babić &Vujić, 2012). Being torn between two or more strands of development is also a sign of the time in which we live. Therefore, the Museology SubDepartment at Zagreb University does indeed take a contemporary approach to the reality of both academia and heritage. References Aparac-Jelušić, T., Faletar Tanacković, & S., Pehar, F. (2009). Structure of the Triple Helix of ALM Seminar – Bibliometric Analysis of Papers Published in the Proceedings from 1997 to 2007. ALM Proceedings, 13, 13-29. Babić, D.,& Vujić, Ž. (2012). Education of Museum and Heritage Educators in Croatia: History, Organization and Quality. In Old Questions, New Answers: quality criteria for museum education. (pp. 19-26). ICOM CECA’11 Conference. Zagreb: ICOM Hrvatska. Faletar Tanacković, S.,& Badurina, B. (2009).Collaboration of Croatian Cultural Heritage Institutions – Present Situation and Expectations.ALM Proceedings, 13, 39. Maroević, I. (1993). Introduction to Museology. Zagreb: Information Sciences Institute. Maroević, I. (1998). Cultural Heritage Phenomenon and Definition of Collected Items. In Archives, Libraries and Museums: Possibilities of Cooperation in the Environment of Global Information Infrastructure. (pp. 14-28). Zagreb: Croatian Library Association. Miklošević, Ž. (2014).Museum as a Multimodal Communication System.Doctoral Thesis, University of Zagreb. Rayward, W.B. (1996). The History and Historiography of Information Science:Some Reflections. Information Processing and Management, 32(1), 3-17. Vujić, Ž. (1999).Museum object and museum collecting as viewed by semiotics.Informatologia, 32(3-4), 200-208. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Žarka Vujić and Helena Stublić 45 Abstract The first part of the paper examines early perspectives through which museology was seen as part of information science in Croatia in the mid1960s. That period saw the establishment of the Postgraduate Programme in Museology, which was run in parallel with programmes in librarianship and documentation science. Links between museology and information science were made even stronger owing to the former ICOMFOM member Ivo Maroević who set up the Museology Sub-Department in 1984. The second part of the paper gives a critical overview of the unique conference, Archives, Libraries and Museums: Possibilities of Collaboration in the Environment of Global Information Infrastructure that has been held annually in Croatia since 1996. The conference influenced views on the convergence of disciplines, but also the development of museology and solutions for museographic issues in Croatia. Even though the institutions and their related disciplines have in common numerous activities, research phenomena, and methodologies, there are evidently differences among them that need to be respected. Key words: Museology, museum, archive, library, convergence Résumé L'article commence par interpréter le début de la compréhension de la muséologie en tant que composante des sciences de l'information en Croatie au milieu des années 60 du 20ème siècle. A cette époque même à Zagreb, parallèlement avec les études de bibliothéconomie et documentation, un Master en muséologie fut fondé. Un lien encore plus fort entre la muséologie et les sciences de l'information s'est noué en 1984 quand le Département de muséologie a été crée à l'initiative d'Ivo Maroević, un ancien membre de l'ICOFOM. En outre, l'article fournit une étude critique de l'activité de la conférence unique "Archives, bibliothèques, musées : les possibilités de coopération dans le contexte d'une infrastructure d'information globale", et laquelle se tient chaque année en Croatie depuis 1996. Ladite conférence a alimenté les réflexions sur la convergence des disciplines, mais aussi elle a influencé le développement de la muséologie et apporté des solutions aux problèmes récemment rencontrés dans le domaine de la muséographie en Croatie. Bien que ces institutions et disciplines partagent une multitude de phénomènes, pratiques et méthodologies de recherche communs, il est évident qu'il existe aussi des différences qui doivent être respectées. Mots clé: Muséologie, le musée, l’archive, la bibliothèque, la convergence . ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Apuntes sobre el Proceso Museal. La exposición como archivo en proceso Norma Angélica Ávila Meléndez y Federico Padilla Gómez Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia – Distrito Federal, México No tenemos nada para narrarnos el otro aspecto de la historia: cómo el objeto hace al sujeto Bruno Latour A finales de 1997 la Gaceta de Museos, revista dirigida por el Arquitecto Felipe Lacouture Fornelli, incluyó un breve texto sobre la museología como estudio científico del proceso museal, fruto de las discusiones que el arquitecto sostuvo con Lourdes Turrent y Georgina Dersdepanian. La museología fue definida como la ciencia que estudia los postulados, acciones y consecuencias del proceso museal cuyo hecho central, con sus repercusiones sociales, es la confrontación de individuos con una realidad planteada mediante objetos representativos que son seleccionados, conservados y exhibidos (Turrent, 1997, p. 7). El hecho de comprender la museología como una disciplina que asume responsabilidades derivadas de su gestión de la memoria y de la representación, indica la existencia de un fuerte vínculo entre museos, bibliotecas y archivos. Cada una de estas instituciones gestiona de manera distinta sus fondos, pero las tres instancias deben reconocer las implicaciones éticas y sociales de sus procesos de selección, conservación, clasificación y descarte. Al aceptar la premisa de que la musealización pone en suspenso a la cosa, transformándola en musealia y construyendo una metarrealidad cultural (Dólak, 2010), asumimos que los musealia nos transforman en observadores de segundo orden. Esto es, dejamos de mirar la cosa en sí, para mirar su invitación a observarla en tanto que musealia, en una apertura de tiempo/espacio museográfico que nos constituye en observadores de una representación de lo real a través de lo real. Los musealia ciertamente se nos presentan en su función documental sensible, pero también en su función utópica, en su capacidad de apertura a otros mundos (Desvallées, 2010, p.50). Una mirada ingenua reconoce tan sólo las cosas mostradas y no la función comunicativa de los musealia como parte de un discurso que responde a circunstancias políticas, sociales y económicas específicas. Aquí no se trata de acceder a la información, se exige del usuario una capacidad para decodificar representaciones de lo social que están ahí con el propósito de legitimar una visión particular del mundo. A diferencia de las bibliotecas y los archivos, que suelen activarse a partir búsquedas más o menos específicas de usuarios individuales, los museos ofrecen encuentros con fondos que pueden reconfigurarse de innumerables maneras. Si el museo es capaz de albergar todo aquello que hemos humanizado, no es menos cierto que los musealia nos humanizan. De ahí que la 48 Apuntes sobre el Proceso Museal. La exposición como archivo en proceso reflexión sistemática sobre las consecuencias del proceso museal tenga un carácter impostergable y vital. A falta de una reflexión continua sobre los valores culturales y mnémicos que legitiman visiones del mundo, los museos contemporáneos van perdiendo sentido. Estos apuntes presentan un estudio de caso para aproximarse a las consecuencias de un proceso museal en un contexto específico. Los apuntes se han organizado en dos apartados, de manera que quede constancia del contexto institucional en el que surge la Parcela Móvil Comunitaria, una muestra itinerante en torno a la milpa como patrimonio biocultural y una reflexión sobre sus posibles consecuencias. En el primer apartado intentamos esclarecer los postulados que guían el proyecto de la Parcela Móvil Comunitaria, describimos las acciones realizadas entre agosto y octubre del 2015 y sus posibles implicaciones. En el segundo apartado se desarrolla el concepto de “espacio comunitario” como modalidad del proceso museal que, desde un enfoque comunicológico, busca transitar de un sistema de información-difusión a un sistema de información-comunicación (Galindo, 2011, pp. 214-220). A partir ahí, subrayamos la necesidad de revaluar las exposiciones efímeras, cíclicas y temporales en contextos comunitarios. La naturaleza transitoria de estas exposiciones no permite instituir una versión de la memoria colectiva, por lo contrario, posibilita un ejercicio ético de construcción y reconstrucción de archivos (y olvidos) de las memorias posibles (Barrios, Lazo,& Martínez, 2008, p. 8). Parcela Móvil Comunitaria: la milpa como patrimonio biocultural de México El proyecto museológico de la Parcela Móvil Comunitaria aborda una temática de interés actual en México: diferentes sectores de la población realizan acciones en defensa de la soberanía alimentaria, la conservación de la biodiversidad y los saberes asociados al cultivo de la milpa. La diversidad genética del maíz y de otras especies vegetales básicas para nuestra alimentación se encuentra en riesgo debido a la introducción de semillas transgénicas, la expansión del monocultivo y las políticas que desalientan el trabajo de los campesinos. La relevancia de la milpa es inmensa, hablamos de 9.000 años de un proceso de domesticación y diversificación del maíz a lo largo y ancho de México, de milpas aclimatadas a sistemas ecológicos muy diversos habitados por millones de personas. En pocas palabras, el maíz domesticó al ser humano a través una relación de mutua dependencia y reciprocidad. La milpa es una manera de cultivar la tierra que solidariza las relaciones de los seres vivos. La base es el conjunto maíz-calabaza-frijol, pero hay otros vegetales que conviven en el espacio de la milpa: quelites, chiles, tomates, plantas medicinales y algunas que incluso sirven para condimentar. Por eso, se dice que la milpa “es” muchos (INAH, 2015). En México “hacer milpa” significa efectuar una organización solidaria, un festejo compartido y la posibilidad de estar juntos desde nuestra diferencia. Y “hacer milpa” fue el concepto utilizado para ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Norma Angélica Ávila Meléndez y Federico Padilla Gómez 49 proyectar la Parcela Móvil Comunitaria como un espacio efímero. Es necesario hacer aquí una breve referencia al contexto de trabajo. Hay que señalar que desde 1972, el Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia impulsa, a través de la Coordinación Nacional de Museos y Exposiciones, proyectos experimentales que suscriben los postulados de la Nueva Museología, tales como la Casa del Museo, los museos escolares y los museos comunitarios. Cuando se consideró la opción de reactivar un programa de museos comunitarios en 2013, las condiciones eran muy distintas a las existentes en 1995, cuando el INAH y la Dirección General de Culturas Populares firmaron un convenio para impulsar la creación de museos comunitarios, acción que concluyó en el año 2000. El análisis de 2013 planteó la pertinencia de un programa que trabajara de manera corresponsable con experiencias comunitarias sin la exigencia de culminar en la figura del museo. El postulado inicial del nuevo programa, denominado Programa Nacional de Espacios Comunitarios, cuestionó la figura del museo anclada en dimensiones espacio-temporales: El nombre del programa, espacios comunitarios, quiere proyectar un término amplio, que abarque desde museos y centros comunitarios hasta espacios alternativos al aire libre, con distintos tiempos de exposición: permanentes, temporales, cíclicos o efímeros. Asimismo, se omite la palabra Museo, porque aún con agregados lingüísticos y conceptuales como: museos comunitarios o ecomuseos, la palabra es tan sólida en el imaginario de diversas poblaciones que consciente o inconscientemente buscan la reproducción del museo tradicional en su comunidad. El concepto museo trae consigo, además, dos elementos definidos cuasi perse, su espacio, que es retomado como un edificio contenedor, y su temporalidad que tácitamente se contempla como permanente (INAH, 2013b). Con referentes metodológicos muy semejantes a los que han desarrollado los museos comunitarios (INAH, 2013a), el Programa declaró de manera explícita la necesidad de considerar la dimensión ética de esta labor y de reconocer los diferentes intereses de los agentes que participan en cada proyecto. La Parcela Móvil Comunitaria se inició como complemento de una exposición sobre la milpa en México creada por especialistas y producida por la Coordinación Nacional de Museos y Exposiciones del INAH. Para difundir el tema a nivel comunitario, se planteó distribuir carteles en localidades rurales y urbanas cercanas al museo sede. En colaboración con los colegas de la Dirección Técnica, el Programa Nacional de Espacios Comunitarios diseñó, como ya se mencionó, una muestra efímera e itinerante. A manera de experiencia piloto se trabajó, entre agosto y octubre del 2015, con habitantes de dos localidades de la Ciudad de México: Santa Ana Tlacotenco (Milpa Alta) y San Lorenzo La Cebada (Xochimilco). La comunidad de Santa Ana Tlacotenco se ubica en el sureste de la Ciudad de México y es uno de los ocho pueblos originarios de Milpa Alta, territorios donde persisten modos de vida ligados al cultivo de la tierra y a la conservación de la lengua materna: el idioma náhuatl. En esta localidad, un grupo de jóvenes universitarios escucharon atentamente a campesinos de ochenta años, recorrieron las calles del pueblo y visitaron milpas para realizar una producción fotográfica que aludiera a los modos de ser y “hacer milpa” en Santa Ana Tlacotenco. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 50 Apuntes sobre el Proceso Museal. La exposición como archivo en proceso Producto de este taller fueron las series fotográficas, testimonios orales y videos que se integraron al espacio museográfico móvil. Los jóvenes realizaron indagaciones visuales sobre las transformaciones del pueblo, por ejemplo, cómo el nopal desplazó al maíz como cultivo predominante y también identificaron los cruces identatarios entre jóvenes urbanos que cada día “bajan al centro” para estudiar y regresan a integrarse como parte importante de la tradición familiar y comunitaria campesina. Aunque Xochimilco también se ubica en la zona sur de la ciudad y 4 en algunas zonas todavía se cultivan las chinampas , el trabajo en San Lorenzo La Cebada fue distinto, ya que esta colonia fue urbanizada y habitada por personas que no tenían arraigo en ese territorio. Junto con un colectivo de artistas radicado ahí, que retomó la idea de “hacer milpa” para festejar su cuarto aniversario, se inició la documentación de los orígenes de la colonia y se realizaron producciones fotográficas sobre oficios y servicios característicos de La Cebada. El módulo informativo sobre la milpa fue elaborado con el apoyo de especialistas de la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO); se sumaron textos de poetas y antropólogos y, por supuesto, los resultados de los talleres en Santa Ana y La Cebada con información previamente recabada por el Archivo Fotográfico de Culhuacán. La milpa también implica la convivencia de seres distintos. Así como el frijol y la calabaza nutren al suelo y ayudan al maíz, “hacer milpa entre nosotros” es convivir y aportar al bien común, desde nuestra diversidad. Las imágenes y los testimonios compartidos aquí nos invitan a reflexionar sobre la manera en que perfeccionamos nuestra capacidad de hacer milpa (INAH, 2015. Texto del módulo informativo). Con la presentación de la muestra en Culhuacán, se cerró la primera fase del proyecto de la Parcela Móvil. La segunda fase consiste en la primera itinerancia durante el verano del 2016, incluyendo las dos comunidades iniciales. El reto es instalarla de tal manera que funcione como espacio de investigación colectiva a partir de los textos y las imágenes del módulo informativo. Literalmente debe contar con “espacios horizontales” que permitan modificar la información y las imágenes, opinar sobre los modos de hacer milpa en otras latitudes y reconfigurar en cada sede el orden de los elementos textuales y gráficos. La tercera y última fase consistirá en la difusión de estos circuitos y la puesta a disposición del módulo básico a través de una página web, de manera que cualquier organización o comunidad interesada pueda utilizar esos materiales organizando su propia Parcela. En resumen, los postulados que guiaban el proyecto de la Parcela Móvil, y que serán descritos en detalle en el segundo apartado, son: Respeto a la diversidad de las formas organizativas de las comunidades, reconociendo que lejos de anclarse en un modelo único, funcionan adaptándose a diversas circunstancias. La chinampa es un tipo de parcela artificial sobre el agua del lago en que se asentaba Tenochtitlán en el valle de México. Las poblaciones sureñas tradicionalmente habían surtido de legumbres y vegetales a los habitantes de la ciudad gracias a la pervivencia de las chinampas. 4 ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Norma Angélica Ávila Meléndez y Federico Padilla Gómez 51 Ejercicio ético del conocimiento en el campo de los museos y del patrimonio. Los investigadores y profesionales de museos deben responder a los intereses de su institución y/o de su gremio a la par que identificar la gama de intereses de los otros agentes (representantes comunitarios, políticos de diversos niveles de gobierno, comunidades educativas y académicas, asociaciones civiles, entre muchos otros). Responsabilidad compartida de las acciones museales y, por tanto, de las consecuencias del proceso museal. Repensar la exposición comunitaria como archivo abierto Creemos que la Parcela Móvil Comunitaria indaga uno de los postulados básicos de la Nueva Museología: la generación de procesos de investigación colectiva que trascienda la autoridad disciplinar del museo tradicional. La Parcela Móvil Comunitaria no se concibió como una exposición terminada, sino como un espacio en proceso, susceptible de ser intervenido, discutido o complementado por personas de distinta procedencia: científicos de instituciones distintas al INAH, campesinos, investigadores del propio Instituto, jóvenes trabajadores y estudiantes, familias, artistas locales y externos, entre otros. Para el Programa Nacional de Espacios Comunitarios, estos procesos de investigación deberían apuntar hacia una conservación reflexiva debido a la pervivencia de valores absolutos que todavía acompaña a los bienes patrimoniales en México. El Programa propuso en 2014 la noción de “conservación reflexiva” para que los profesionales del ámbito patrimonial y la sociedad en general reflexionemos sobre las valoraciones otorgadas al patrimonio e intentar desmontar los discursos, tanto institucionales como de la sociedad civil y de las comunidades, que continúan reproduciendo una noción intrínseca del patrimonio, vigente en la legislación mexicana y en los museos en general. El valor intrínseco del patrimonio alude a un valor no instrumental, no relacionado con el uso; el valor intrínseco del patrimonio deriva de sus propiedades inherentes y tiene un valor objetivo (Villaseñor, 2011, p. 7). Estos puntos de vista llegan al extremo de afirmar que cierto bien cultural es valioso por el hecho de ser parte del patrimonio, en lugar de referir que es un bien patrimonial justamente porque se le atribuyen valores desde cierto enfoque disciplinar o social que tendrían que ser objeto de debate. Desde la construcción del conocimiento no se niega ningún saber, de ahí que el espacio comunitario se concibe como un espacio reflexivo que permite tejer relaciones entre sujetos; estos sujetos pertenecen a diferentes comunidades y sus visiones sobre el patrimonio cultural suelen diferir. Es decir, el conflicto es un elemento que subyace al campo de lo cultural, por ello resulta indispensable visibilizar lo que está en juego y asumir la responsabilidad de la palabra construida en común (Avila, Padilla,& Juárez, 2016, p. 183). En la representación museográfica la diversidad de puntos de vista suele homogeneizarse, se invisibilizan diferencias y se presenta una metarrealidad cultural sin disenso. La Parcela Móvil busca un escenario de conservación reflexiva en el que el disenso sea posible; aspira a la conservación de los saberes y conocimientos que están ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 52 Apuntes sobre el Proceso Museal. La exposición como archivo en proceso inervados en los objetos museales, que se movilizan por una confrontación de significaciones y no por un supuesto valor intrínseco. Quizá en el caso de la Parcela Móvil más que de un espacio estamos hablando de un tiempocomunitario; un tiempo espacializado que da cuenta de un conjunto de interacciones sociales en torno a la milpa en dos sentidos: como cultivo agroecológico y como cultivo de convivencia, en el que pobladores en zonas rurales, semirurales y urbanas pueden participar y compartir experiencias vitales diferentes pero con la posibilidad del reconocimiento mutuo. En el caso concreto de la Parcela, nos enfrentamos a la representación fotográfica que al convertirse en musealia, cambia lo representado en muchos sentidos. D. Ernesto Castor, nuestro guía del cultivo en Santa Ana, observa sus manos sosteniendo un elote en la fotografía que lo transforma en la representación de los campesinos mexicanos que conservan los saberes de la milpa; el joven que trabaja en una “bici-taxi” en una colonia de Xochimilco se reconoce y es reconocido por sus pares, sin dejar de notar que en la serie de fotografías representa un momento en la historia de la colonia. Al llegar estas imágenes y estos textos a otras localidades, habrá un inmediato reconocimiento comparativo, la posibilidad de opinar y de reconocerse en el otro. Al observar los paneles informativos, pero más aún al intervenir con comentarios y reordenamientos de las las fotografías en las mesas de archivo, los usuarios de la Parcela tienen la posibilidad de acceder a la dimensión utópica del museo. Si participan en los talleres o tertulias de su localidad actúan como gestores de la memoria y de la representación de su pueblo; el reto es lograr la construcción de saberes como una de las posibilidades de la exposición (LAIS, 2014, pp. 264-270). Y cuando se musealizan las cosas, el mundo cambia; los elotes, las herramientas y los utensilios para cocinar conservan la afectividad de sus dueños pero en el ejercicio del orden, de la ubicación, de volverlos objetos comunicantes, se abre una fisura entre la mirada primera y la mirada del espectador de museo. Si participan en la instalación museográfica que presenta los resultados de un circuito junto con representantes de otras 3 ó 4 localidades, con científicos que no conocen, con artistas locales, con familias enteras… será ineludible poner en juego capacidades de negociación, toma de decisiones conjuntas o solución de discrepancias porque el hilo conductor sigue presente: de lo que se trata es de hacer milpa entre todos. El espacio comunitario es configurado como diálogo sobre la identidad y la otredad, que posibilita miradas de segundo y tercer orden. Esta reflexividad es la que nos permitirá comprender cómo conformamos la realidad, cómo nos miramos mirando lo museal en tanto que ejercicio ético de la memoria y del conocimiento. Comentarios finales En la época de expansión de los museos comunitarios en México, hace unos veinte años, se utilizó la metáfora del espejo para referirse a la representación museográfica, la comunidad se miraba a sí misma en el museo, generando a una revaloración de sus bienes y prácticas culturales: ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Norma Angélica Ávila Meléndez y Federico Padilla Gómez 53 “La metáfora que iguala el funcionamiento de cierto tipo de museos, similares en su concepción a los comunitarios, con un espejo, existe porque el espejo sí funciona: los museos son el instrumento utilizado por las comunidades para retomar la iniciativa cultural, para mirarse a sí mismas y presentar dicha imagen hacia afuera” (Barrera citado por Morales, 1995, p. 29). Esta postura fue criticada por no considerar la metarrealidad del museo, atribuyendo una trasparencia a la representación museográfica: Desde un punto de vista ideológico, los museos comunitarios anhelan la reconstrucción de la etnicidad sobre la base del “Museo-espejo”. Pero aceptarlo así equivale a negar nuestra postura inicial: la museografía no es la cosa en sí misma sino la representación de algo. La vuelta al pasado, la recuperación de la memoria, pasa por los criterios de los sistemas de cargos y comités, los letrados, los presidentes municipales, los antropólogos o los arqueólogos. Desde este punto de vista es inaceptable la simplificación que se hace de los museos al considerarlos ingenuamente como “espejos-reflejos”. Se trata por lo contrario de “espejos transfigurados” (Morales, 1995, pp.28-29). Si la representación museográfica y la metarrealidad configurada por los musealia plantean una mutua implicación con los espectadores, esto es, si el objeto musealizado construye al sujeto en comunidad, nos preguntamos si sería posible “atravesar el espejo”, en el sentido de concebir el espacio museográfico de la Parcela Móvil como una representación transitoria que, en su posibilidad real de cambio, enfatice esa dimensión utópica de los musealia. A manera de un archivo en proceso de clasificación y jerarquización, es posible que los textos se subordinen, se generen palimpsestos, se encuentren nuevas lógicas y se identifiquen vacíos. Según Galindo al centrar la atención en la percepción misma el mundo cambia, hablamos aquí de un ejercicio de segundo orden. El objeto musealizado no es la cosa en sí, sino la cosa y mi percepción de la cosa en una red de relaciones significantes, en una relación de valoraciones mutuas. Si pensamos en dos o más individuos que observan con atención se abre la posibilidad de la comunicación, no tanto mediante la figura de la difusión por la cual uno le dice al otro, sino de una interacción en que se afecten mutuamente. (Galindo, 2006, p. 78) Finalmente, más allá de la representación museográfica, suscribimos la idea de que el hecho museal enlaza lo humano con lo no humano y que la historia de nuestra musealización está inscrita en los espacios museográficos. Referencias Avila N., Padilla F.,& Juárez A. (2016). Conservación reflexiva: Através de la palabra del otro. In Estudios sobre conservación, restauración y museología Vol. III (pp. 178-188). Ponencia presentada en el 8º Foro Académico de la Escuela Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museografía, abril del 2014, Ciudad de México. Barrios, J., Lazo P., & Martínez A. (2008). Memoria instituida, memoria instituyente. México: Universidad Iberoamericana. Desvallées, A., & Mairesse, F. (2010). Conceptos claves de museología. Paris: Armand Colin-ICOM. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 54 Apuntes sobre el Proceso Museal. La exposición como archivo en proceso Dolák, J. (2010, Mayo 19-21). Museology the recent state and its future. In Symposium Museology Museum Studies in the XXIst Century: The recent state and its future. Recuperado de http://www.phil.muni.cz/wune/home/vyveska/reader.pdf Galindo, L. (2006). Cibercultura. Un mundo emergente y una nueva mirada. México: CNCA. Galindo, L. (2011). Ingeniería en comunicación social y promoción cultural. Sobre cultura, cibercultura y redes sociales. Buenos Aires: Homo Sapiens Ediciones. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia INAH. (2013a). Diagnóstico documental de museos comunitarios. México: Coordinación Nacional de Museos y Exposiciones. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia INAH. (2013b). Programa Nacional de Espacios Comunitarios. Proyecto. México: Coordinación Nacional de Museos y Exposiciones. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia INAH. (2015). Parcela Móvil Comunitaria. Memoria del proyecto. México: Coordinación Nacional de Museos y Exposiciones Laboratorio Audiovisual de Investigación Social LAIS. (2014). Tejedores de imágenes. Propuestas metodológicas de investigación y gestión del patrimonio fotográfico y audiovisual. México: Instituto Mora-CNCAConacyt-Fonca Latour, B. (1998). De la mediación técnica: filosofía, sociología, genealogía En M.Domènech&F. Tirado (Eds.). Sociología simétrica. Ensayos sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Barcelona: Gedisa, pp. 249302 Morales, L. (1995). Los espejos transfigurados de Oaxaca. In Boletín Archivo General de la Nación, 3 ,13-44. Turrent, L. (1997). Museología, estudio científico del proceso museal. Propuesta de una definición sistemática. In Gaceta de museo. Órgano informativo del Centro de Documentación Museológica, 8, 5-9. Villaseñor, I. (2011). El valor intrínseco del patrimonio cultural: ¿una noción aún vigente? Intervención. Revista Internacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museología, 3, 6-13. Resumen Al comprender la museología como una disciplina que asume responsabilidades derivadas de su gestión de la memoria y de la representación se pone en evidencia la existencia de un fuerte vínculo entre museos, bibliotecas y archivos. Por otro lado, la especificidad del museo al transformar la cosa en musealia y generar una metarrealidad cultural, nos lleva a indagar los mecanismos a traves de los cuales los musealia nos convierten en observadores de segundo orden, capaces de mirarnos cuando observamos el acto museal en tanto que ejercicio ético de la memoria y el conocimiento. Estos apuntes presentan un estudio de caso consistente en un proyecto museológico sobre la milpa como patrimonio biocultural de México con el propósito de revisar sus condiciones de posibilidad y ponderar las consecuencias de este proceso museal concreto. Palabras clave: espacio comunitario, proceso museal, conservación reflexiva, milpa como patrimonio biocultural Abstract Notes on the museum exhibition as process. On the one hand,understanding museology as a discipline that assumes responsibilities arising from its memory management and representation indicates a strong link between museums, libraries and archives. On the other hand, the specificity by which the museum transforms the thing into museum object and its capacity for generating a cultural meta-reality leads us to investigate how museum objects make us our own observers – how we look at ourselves watching the museum fact as an ethical exercise in memory and knowledge. These notes present a case study of a museum project on the milpa, a crop-growing system, as biocultural heritage of ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Norma Angélica Ávila Meléndez y Federico Padilla Gómez 55 Mexico, to revise its possibilities and evaluate the consequences of this particular museum process. Keywords: community space, museological process, reflexive conservation, milpa, biocultural heritage ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Amoxcalli. Un análisis sobre la dimensión ontológica de los códices en los archivos, bibliotecas y museos Alejandro Sabido Sánchez Juárez Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia – México D.F. Los museos, creados en el contexto del proyecto ilustrado, tenían como una de sus tareas fundamentales exponer públicamente, a través de los objetos que integraban sus colecciones, las clasificaciones y estructuras que permitían entender el mundo. De la mano del llamamiento a “asumir la mayoría de edad”, a “pensar por nosotros mismos”, propuesto por Kant (2004), venía la posibilidad de ser testigos directos de aquello en torno a lo cual se generaba el conocimiento. Elmuseo públicoeraun sitio para unademocratización deltestimonio, un lugar quemediaba entrela "cienciade élite" y un público más amplio, y en el que laevidencia material delas pretensiones de verdadera presentadapara que todos pudieran verla. Aquíla "verdad"sehacía visiblede forma objetiva (Swinney, 2013). Desde la museología surgen preguntas importantes si consideramos la evolución de las formas de producción del conocimiento científico; la especialización disciplinaria de los museos frente al modelo enciclopédico; la tensión que existe entre representación y presentación cuando hablamos de objetos expuestos; así como el cuestionamiento que propone la antropología en relación con la idea de un solo mundo. Ante estas inquietudes se plantea la necesidad de analizar el estatuto del objeto museal; las relaciones que gestionan los museos entre la sociedad y estos objetos; y las finalidades que se persiguen con estas relaciones. La presente investigación propone que en los museos es posible experimentar una apertura de la noción de ontología, gracias a una "puesta en presencia" que trasciende la relación objeto-sujeto de la epistemología moderna y que abre una nueva vía de conocimiento. Poner en presencia implica realizar una acción pública en un contexto determinado (Arendt, 2005). Una acción transitiva, que implica a un otro o más bien a un universo potencial de otros, y por otra parte, una acción en un contexto institucional, epistémico, con sus cargas socio-políticas, históricas y simbólicas Lo que se ofrece en el museo, tiene un grado de objetivación específico: ha sido seleccionado para presentarse debido a una serie de valores que le han sido asignados desde cierta perspectiva o intención de conocimiento. Sin embargo múltiples predicados han sido asociados a esa entidad que se pone a disposición, desde las razones por las que entró a formar parte de una colección específica hasta el marco discursivo con que es presentado en una exposición particular. A estos predicados habría que añadir las posibles valoraciones propuestas por diversas disciplinas: la química, la física, la estética, la economía o la antropología. Para cada una de ellas el mismo referente concreto tendrá un valor distinto, pues cada disciplina puede privilegiar ciertos aspectos sobre otros. Esa selección de los valores potenciales proviene de la creación de la categoría objeto 58 Amoxcalli. Un análisis sobre la dimensión ontológica de los códices en los archivos, bibliotecas y museos que tuvo un papel central en la Ilustración así como en las clasificaciones de las colecciones de los museos. La puesta en presencia que se realiza en los museos, puesto que es un hecho social, debe tomar en consideración tanto los intereses como los contextos perceptivos de los diversos públicos que acuden a una exposición, pues dependiendo de los intereses y capacidades de cada uno, (o si se prefiere el capital educativo, social o cultural), se producirá una selección de los aspectos que se van a privilegiar... En otras palabras, ocurre una nueva objetivación. Si en la epistemología moderna, al menos en la tradición Kantiana, la objetivación se encuentra vinculada a una intención de conocimiento, (Kant, 2003) cabe la posibilidad de que cada contexto epistémico produzca objetos diferentes dependiendo de los intereses cognitivos. En clave fenomenológica, la objetivación es una producción a partir de algo concreto, llamémosle "cosa" (Heidegger, 1953), que permite inscribir una tensión entre "lo que hay" y "lo que tengo ante mí", dentro de un corpus de intereses. Si es posible reconocer la existencia de algo que antecede al objeto — la cosa — nos será fácil descubrir cómo en la economía de los objetos se encuentran los rastros de los mundos concretos, o si se prefiere, de los modos de existencia (Latour, 2013), que generaron esos objetos. Tal vez el mejor ejemplo para esta investigación sea la producción de la categoría patrimonio cultural. Por otra parte, el reconocimiento de un contexto específico se inserta en una tradición fenomenológica que no ignora la existencia de una realidad, pero que privilegia el estudio de los fenómenos concretos en mundos determinados como vías para entender de mejor forma la relación entre los humanos y esa realidad. Al analizar el tipo de relación que han planteado los archivos, bibliotecas y museos entre sus colecciones y la sociedad, es posible detectar que la forma de responder a la pregunta por "lo que hay" y su forma de ubicarlo en relación a un modelo de mundo no sólo es distinta para cada institución, sino que revela una posición singular en lo que respecta a los museos. Parte 1: Códices Esta hipótesis se desarrolla a partir del análisis de los componentes institucionales de los principales repositorios de la memoria: archivos, bibliotecas y museos. Para poder plantear de mejor forma este análisis se tomó como punto de partida la exposición Códices de México, Memorias y Saberes, realizada en 2014-2015 en el marco de las celebraciones por el 50 aniversario del Museo Nacionalde Antropología y los 75 años del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y que reunió por primera vez 44 códices pertenecientes a la Biblioteca Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Los códices no sólo son los documentos más valiosos del pasado mexicano sino que tienen la característica de haber sido a lo largo de la historia objetos de museos, archivos y bibliotecas. Esta exposición fue particularmente importante porque tras la llegada de los europeos al territorio que actualmente ocupa México, los códices fueron sistemáticamente destruidos para acabar con la ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Alejandro Sabido Sánchez Juárez 59 idolatría, al ver en ellos “figuras del mal” (Meneses, 2012). Esta destrucción no sólo termina con un “sistema estatal que recogía y propagaba el pasado por medio de los códices sino que al desaparecer las instituciones que antes almacenaban la memoria se perdieron también los instrumentos que aseguraban la transmisión de una generación a la siguiente”. (Meneses, 2012, p.22). Los códices se resguardaban en instituciones llamadas Amoxcalli, que en el ámbito de la sociedad mexica significaba literalmente “la casa de los libros” (Meneses, 2012). Muchos de estos repositorios fueron quemados en Tenochtitlán y Tlatelolco, en hogueras “del tamaño de un monte que ardería por espacio de ocho días” lo mismo que en territorio maya donde tenemos referencias de la quema de unos cien mil códices por parte de fray Diego de Landa (Arizpe y Tostado, 1993; Rayón, 1854). Los códices eran los registros en los sistemas de escritura nativa del devenir de la existencia de las sociedades prehispánicas que servían como soporte para “la elocución de cantares, interpretación de los sueños, [registrar] cómputos calendáricos y astrológicos, de textos como los huehuetlahtolli, rituales sagrados, su ley y doctrina. Y así mismo lo eran de sus historias, genealogías y otras formas de memoria” (León-Portilla, 1997, p.142). La función de estos códigos era aportar significaciones más allá del lenguaje a partir de un complejo sistema en que los glifos, la estructura y un contexto determinado eran parte fundamental de un complejo sistema de interpretación (León-Portilla, 1997). A este sistema, clave para la presente investigación, se le llamaba Amoxotoca e implica la conjunción del canto y la lectura, un proceso que requería estar “familiarizado o ser especialista en tal sistema de discurso, que tiene una estructura interna y convenciones que permiten captar los significados”. Amoxohtoca, significa ‘seguir el camino del libro’… indica cómo debía de efectuarse tal proceso que en el fondo implicaba des-codificar el sistema. Hay incluso, en las páginas de algunos códices, representaciones de huellas de pie que justamente marcan cómo ha de seguirse el camino de su lectura” (León-Portilla, 1997, p.144). Tras el periodo de destrucción inicial, comenzó un largo proceso en el que se reconoció paulatinamente el valor de aquellos códices que lograron salvarse de las hogueras (en el que participaron también algunos de los misioneros) y que fue llevando a su preservación primero en archivos, luego en bibliotecas y finalmente con esta exposición, permitió poder relacionarlos con la sociedad en un contexto museográfico. En cada una de estas instituciones, los códices fueron vistos de formas distintas y desempeñaron diversas funciones. Cada institución otorgó una ubicación y una función a los códices dentro de sus acervos y les asignó una forma de valor específica de acuerdo con la vocación institucional de cada una. A lo largo de este proceso los códices experimentaron procesos de objetivación, o si se prefiere, de patrimonialización de acuerdo a diferentes contextos epistémicos. En otras palabras, fueron objeto de una producción ontológica. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 60 Amoxcalli. Un análisis sobre la dimensión ontológica de los códices en los archivos, bibliotecas y museos Si seguimos la propuesta de Pomian en torno al patrimonio cultural, las taxonomías de los objetos no sólo se relacionan con su “apariencia visible”, sino con los usos que se hace de ellos, “Entre unos y otros se despliega la historia del objeto entre los hombres, resultado de las variaciones de su función en el tiempo y el espacio, y de los cambios que sufre por este hecho su apariencia visible” (Pomian, 1997, p.4). Esto implica una forma de entender los bienes patrimoniales no desde el punto de lo que son, sino de lo que son para nosotros. Pomian propone que además de las clases: cuerpos, desechos, cosas y medios, podríamos hablar de una quinta categoría formada por los objetos semióforos: “todo objeto se vuelve semióforo como consecuencia de la descontextualización y la exposición. Y lo sigue siendo mientras esté expuesto” (Pomian, 1997, p.4). De manera simple podemos decir que el semióforo es algo a lo que se extrae de la naturaleza o del uso y por tanto se cambia su función para colocarlo ante la mirada y bajo protección: textos, signos icónicos, sustitutos de bienes, órdenes, insignias y expuestos. Esto nos desplaza de la pregunta por “lo que hay” hacia lo que hay para nosotros. Una forma de instrumentalización en la que el referente es para algo. Y esto nos conduce a una ontología contextual. Parte 2: Pluralismo epistémico Para pensar en esta dimensión productiva de los objetos, proponemos acudir a una serie de desplazamientos que se han desarrollado en la epistemología y la filosofía de las ciencias en los años recientes y que podríamos denominar pluralismo ontológico. Esta concepción se encuentra relacionada con una forma de entender los procesos mediante los cuales se genera el conocimiento a través del reconocimiento de una multiplicidad epistemológica. Este pluralismo se confronta con el llamado monismo para el que las llamadas teorías “fundamentales” serían, “aquéllas que describen la realidad tal como es en sí misma, mientras que las teorías “fenomenológicas” o las disciplinas “secundarias” sólo describirían los hechos tal como se nos aparecen” (Lombardi & Pérez, 2011). El problema radica en que lo que tenemos ante nosotros en la producción académica, en las diversas escuelas de pensamiento y las disciplinas científicas, hasta ahora, no puede englobarse en un modelo único. Frente a esta concepción, que hunde sus raíces claramente en la noción Kantiana del objeto, se postula la imposibilidad de poder asumir un planteamiento que sea metafísicamente correcto así como una interpretación única o absoluta de los conceptos. Si no existe un concepto privilegiado de objeto, ni de existencia que sea el metafísicamente correcto… esto implica que hay una coexistencia de “esquemas conceptuales alternativos, no convergentes ni reducibles a un esquema único (Lombardi & Pérez, 2011, p. 48). Por lo tanto, la postura pluralista implica que “los enfoques y teorías científicasno deben serevaluados en relación conel ideal de ofrecerlaverdad única, completay exhaustivasobre un dominio .... Diferentespuntos de vista sobrela ciencia, incluyendo el histórico,normativo-filosófico y socialcientífico [sic], pueden arrojar ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Alejandro Sabido Sánchez Juárez 61 luz sobrediferentesaspectos de esta empresamultifacética” (Kellert, Longino, & Waters, 2006, p. XXIV). A la luz de la producción interdisciplinaria la empresa científica se torna un fenómeno complejo ya que, como proponen Kellert, Longino y Waters “ningún enfoque disciplinario puede proporcionar, por sí solo, un relato plenamente adecuado de sus aspectos conceptuales, técnicos, cognitivo-psicológicos, sociales, históricos y normativos" (2006, p. IX). Hay un punto en el que tanto científicos como filósofos se ven en la necesidad de reconocer los beneficios de contar con distintas descripciones y distintas aproximaciones, continuando con Kellert, Longino y Waters, “ya que algunas descripciones ofrecen mejores relatos de algunos aspectos de una situación compleja y otras descripciones ofrecen mejores relatos de otros aspectos. Y ésta puede ser la forma en que siempre será”. (2006, p. XXIV). Esta pluralidad en el plano epistémico tiene su correlato en la dimensión del objeto, si pensamos en la propuesta de Pomian sobre la idoneidad de atender a la función de los objetos y no a los objetos en sí: “se concluye, que ningún [objeto] está relacionado de una vez y para siempre con la clase a la cual pertenece por su génesis.” (1997) Una aproximación que nos recuerda la propuesta de Martin Heidegger, sobre algo que antecede al objeto y que podría explicar de forma clara la base sobre la cual se construyen los procesos de objetivación, la cosa. “Algo autónomo puede convertirse en objeto si lo ponemos ante nosotros, ya sea en la percepción sensible inmediata, ya sea en el recuerdo que lo hace presente. Sin embargo, la cosidad de la cosa no descansa ni en el hecho de que sea un objeto representado (ante-puesto), ni en el hecho de que se pueda determinar desde la objetualidad de un objeto” (Heidegger, 1953, p. 2). De esta forma si reconocemos a la cosa como eso que existe, previa a la objetivación, el problema no estaría en determinar qué es lo que realmente existe sino en “aceptar que todo objeto de conocimiento, del tipo que sea, está constituido en el marco de nuestro esquema categorial y es, por tanto, “objeto para nosotros”… Sin que ello niegue la existencia de “lo nouménico” o “cosa-en-sí” (Lombardi & Pérez, 2011). Pluralismo ontológico Este año en el que conmemoramos los 200 años de la publicación de las Considérations morales sur la destination des ouvrages de l'art,Quatremère de Quincy, podremos recordar la relevancia que tiene el contexto en relación con el patrimonio cultural. El lamento por la “sustracción a su país natal de los modelos de la Antigüedad” [que] comportaría la “privación de todos los términos de comparación que los explican y realzan su valor” (De Quincy, 2007), se vincula directamente con lo que la filosofía de la ciencia llama hoy en día modelos conceptuales. Los objetos de la ciencia existen en relación con los modelos o esquemas conceptuales. “Desmenuzamos el mundo en objetos cuando introducimos uno u otro esquema descriptivo” (Putnam, 1988, p.52). Ya sea que hablemos de abstracta y concreta, o de objetos y eventos, o possibilia y actualia (Turner, 2010), en todo momento nos referimos a algo que existe dentro de un modelo. “De aquí que la pregunta sobre qué es lo que hay en el mundo requiera ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 62 Amoxcalli. Un análisis sobre la dimensión ontológica de los códices en los archivos, bibliotecas y museos de la especificación del esquema conceptual desde el cual se plantea e intenta responder” (Lombardi & Pérez, 2011, p. 48). Cuando Bruno Latour en su Investigación sobre los modos de existencia habla de la preposición, se refiere a la existencia de un código, de una clave a partir de la cual hay que interpretar algo y que nos ayuda a reconocer un modo particular de ser. Como señala (Latour, 2013), cada código produce, o si se prefiere, reconoce, formas distintas de ser. Algo que podríamos leer en Aristóteles cuando dice que “el ser es dicho de múltiples maneras.” (Turner, 2010) Si la palabra categoría proviene kata-agorien, “como hablar sobre o contra algo o alguien publicamente”, (Latour, 2013) las categorías mismas, tendrían resonancia en un contexto específico. De ahí la necesidad de analizar no sólo lo presente, sino el lenguaje y el código de interpretación mediante el cual se predica sobre algo. (Moulines, 1980; Latour, 2013) Múltiples mundos. Si la producción de ontologías se realiza en relación a un modelo, una intención de conocimiento, o un contexto de enunciación, esto implica el reconocimiento de la existencia de muchos mundos. No hablamos aquí de distintas realidades, sino de la construcción de múltiples mundos (Olivé, 2015). Algo que la propia antropología ha postulado una y otra vez y que, de cara a las sociedades postcoloniales, adquiere una dimensión política específica. Finalmente la ciencia es desarrollada por individuos y comunidades, con una dimensión histórica y social determinada, que inciden de una forma u otra en las intencionalidades con las que desarrollan su producción científica (Olivé, 2015). Para cerrar esta sección es importante mencionar que, a pesar de que se hable de muchos mundos que se encuentran en el interior de prácticas y dinámicas sociales y de la existencia de múltiples modelos, esto no implica un llamamiento al relativismo general. Cada comunidad y cada ámbito poseen sus propios “criterios objetivos de evaluación” (Lombardi & Pérez, 2011) y formas específicas de determinar la mala investigación (Kellert et al., 2006), o como propone Latour, formas específicas de veridicción (Latour, 2013). Parte 3: Instituciones de la memoria: Museos, Archivos y Bibliotecas Una vez analizado el modelo de los pluralismos, es necesario confrontarlo con las instituciones de la memoria: museos, archivos y bibliotecas para ver el tipo de relación que establecen entre la sociedad y el mundo. Las tres instituciones comparten una forma particular de gestionar las relaciones de la sociedad con materiales que se encuentran separados de los flujos económicos. Concentran cosas a las que se ha otorgado un valor transitivo, pues al separarlas de lo cotidiano, se ha querido socializar su función. Las tareas fundamentales de estas instituciones de la memoria son investigar, preservar y difundir sus acervos. Para ubicarlas con mayor claridad dentro del campo de las instituciones sociales podríamos llamarlas dispositivos según la acepción que propone Giorgio Agamben, ya que su función es mediar en las relaciones entre los seres y la sociedad (2006), con la ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Alejandro Sabido Sánchez Juárez 63 particularidad de que los seres que gestionan se ubican en el campo del patrimonio cultural. Las tres instituciones tienen una relación compleja entre el pasado y el presente, y proponen a su vez formas de organización y clasificación que buscan ofrecer una forma de ordenamiento de sus acervos según formas específicas de entender el mundo. Si bien, estas formas de ordenamiento han cambiado a lo largo del tiempo, mantienen una voluntad de orden que da cuenta del contexto en que se inscriben: en ellas podemos ver actuar a los agentes que les aportan legitimidad, recursos económicos y patrones culturales específicos. Si revisamos las definiciones propuestas por las entidades rectoras de bibliotecas, (Gill, 2001; Fernández Abad, 2008) museos (ICOM, 2007) y archivos (ICA-UNESCO, 2011), podemos ver que en todos los casos sus fondos son preservados para cumplir una finalidad social: educación, esparcimiento, investigación, promoción de la democracia, mejora en la calidad de vida o salvaguarda de la memoria individual y colectiva. De estas mismas definiciones se desprenden las tres funciones fundamentales de las instituciones de la memoria: preservación, investigación y comunicación (van Mensch, 1992). Las relaciones que se gestionan en torno al patrimonio cultural entre acervos y sociedad responden de forma explícita e implícita a una instrumentalidad entendida no como una fatalidad sino, como propone Gibson, como una de sus condiciones inherentes (2008). No se trata únicamente de resguardar la memoria sino de realizar una serie de acciones para lograr un fin específico. Especificidad ontológica de las instituciones de la memoria. Para poder acceder a lo específico de cada una de estas instituciones de la memoria proponemos analizar, por un lado, cómo se desarrollan estas tareas fundamentales y por otro, tres aspectos que nos permitirán delimitar sus ámbitos de acción, impronta y uso que se hace del patrimonio cultural a través de tres categorías de análisis: ontologías, relaciones e instrumentalidad. a) Funciones fundamentales desarrolladas por las instituciones de la memoria. Preservación.La preservación implica tanto la protección, resguardo y conservación de los aspectos físicos del objeto, como el registro y documentación de los valores que le han sido asignados, así como las razones por las que se le sustrae del lugar que ocupan dentro del mundo y por las que se le asigna una utilidad social. De esta forma la preservación se desarrolla de la mano de la producción ontológica. Aquí se incluye también el incremento de las colecciones, que implica tanto la consolidación de una forma de intelección del mundo como los medios para poder desarrollar modelos que permitan hacer una adecuada representación de una postura epistémica (Kellert et al., 2006). Investigación.Las "cosas" antes de pasar a formar parte de una colección deben ser sometidas a un proceso en el que se les "disciplina". Este proceso al que, a falta de un mejor término llamaremos patrimonialización (Scheiner, 2006), implica la asignación—o si se prefiere, el reconocimiento—de una serie de valores dentro de un contexto epistémico específico. De cosas ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 64 Amoxcalli. Un análisis sobre la dimensión ontológica de los códices en los archivos, bibliotecas y museos pasan a ser objetos de conocimiento, lo que implica necesariamente su separación del contexto en el que se encuentran ubicadas y el traslado a uno diferente. Este movimiento no es sólo físico, implica tanto un cambio de función como la ubicación en un ámbito con diferentes flujos simbólicos, epistémicos y sociales. El proceso de registro y clasificación es asimismo parte de esta acción por la cual se les asigna un lugar dentro de un contexto epistémico y por tanto una posición dentro de un modelo de mundo. O en palabras de Quatremère de Quincy “aleja a la obra de su función original, la desplaza de su lugar de nacimiento y se la sitúa ajena a las circunstancias que le otorgaron significado” (de Quincy, 1815, p.68). Todo proceso de objetivación, en tanto que implica una producción a partir de una "cosa", genera una jerarquización de sus características. Se privilegian o relegan aspectos constitutivos de la "cosa" según la axiología particular del contexto epistémico. Esta acción emplaza al objeto "producido" en un lugar específico dentro del contexto epistémico, lo que le confiere una nueva dimensión ontológica. Esta primera adscripción no solo añade una lectura al referente sino que también lo ubica en relación con los otros objetos dependiendo de su importancia dentro del campo de conocimiento y dentro del conjunto propio de los objetos que, junto con él constituyen los acervos. Esta primera dimensión ontológica está además sujeta a unas condiciones que son susceptibles de cambios en el tiempo. Como sabemos, tanto las técnicas clasificatorias como las disciplinas científicas y las interrupciones experimentan cambios – que se reflejan en la forma de ubicar un objeto dentro un conjunto o modelo mayor. (Swinney, 2013) Sabemos por los estudios de la sociología de la ciencia que los contextos epistémicos se encuentran también emplazados en un entorno concreto y que por tanto están condicionados por factores internos y externos, lo que los hace no sólo cambiantes en el tiempo sino parcialmente determinados por las prácticas científicas que están influenciadas por condiciones sociales, históricas y geográficas. (Olivé, 2015) Comunicación – acceso.Como tercera acción común se encuentra la puesta en relación con la sociedad (Chevallier, 2011; Arendt 2005). En el caso de las instituciones vinculadas con el patrimonio cultural, esta relación incluye una vocación educativa y una dimensión de acceso universal. Estas instituciones cumplen la misión de poner a disposición de la sociedad, materiales que han sido resguardados con la conciencia de que poseen, o pueden poseer, una utilidad social. Cada una posee diversos niveles y sistemas de acceso a las colecciones, del contacto directo al objeto en resguardo mediante protocolos de consulta y sistemas de clasificación, a los sistemas anaqueles abiertos, la consulta in situ, el préstamo domiciliario o la contemplación mediada por dispositivos físicos o electrónicos. Si bien en los archivos y las bibliotecas las formas de poner-enrelación se encuentran profundamente vinculadas con los sistemas clasificatorios, en los museos opera una dimensión diferente, en tanto cuanto la exposición produce nuevas formas de objetivación al introducir una narrativa y una intencionalidad comunicativa en la que los objetos adquieren una nueva función, distinta de aquella que tienen en los acervos. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Alejandro Sabido Sánchez Juárez 65 b) Diferencias entre archivos, bibliotecas y museos Una vez que consideramos las tareas que comparten estas tres instituciones proponemos una serie de enfoques que nos permitirán observar de una forma más clara los elementos que las diferencian. En un primer plano las diferencias parecerían concentrarse en el tipo de materiales que resguardan. Podríamos decir que la biblioteca conserva libros, el archivo documentos y el museo objetos. Sin embargo, como podremos ver, la diferencia va mucho más allá pues su especificidad no sólo radica en el tipo de cosas que conservan, investigan y comunican, sino que la forma de poner a disposición, las formas de asignar valor o verosimilitud (Latour, 2013) y la forma en que se asigna una función social a sus acervos, es también distinta. Ontologías.Si pensamos en las categorías con que se clasifican los componentes de cada tipo de acervo, podremos detectar algunas de las primeras diferencias. El documento es el registro de algo, la huella de una acción que suele además formar parte de un conjunto que le brinda un contexto de inteligibilidad particular, su importancia suele estar vinculada a la información que contiene. Cuando pensamos en un ejemplar (ie: libro o publicación periódica) reconocemos que se trata de uno entre varios que comparten las mismas características, una materialización particular de un múltiple. La información que contiene bien puede encontrarse en otra parte, se trataría de un objeto diseñado ex-profeso para transmitir una información determinada. En el caso de los objetos llamados musealia (van Mensch, 1990), hablamos de objetos cuya dimensión significante se encuentra tanto en su materialidad como en los diversos códigos de comunicación con que cuentan. Como se podrá ver, a pesar de que los tres: documento, ejemplar y musealia cuentan con una dimensión significante, la diferencia de los medios para interpretarlos es tan importante como el lugar que ocupaban antes de ser adscritos a un determinado sistema clasificatorio. Relaciones. La consulta de un objeto de archivo suele darse exclusivamente in situ y con protocolos muy estrictos, mientras que en la biblioteca es más frecuente la consulta en otros entornos, como puede ser el préstamo domiciliario o los préstamos inter bibliotecarios. Los museos proponen múltiples vías de acceso que van desde préstamos de colecciones entre museos a la consulta in situ de los fondos y por supuesto, la presentación dentro de un código discursivo museográfico. Si bien estas dimensiones de uso no son tan tajantes como se han propuesto, sí queda claro que el nivel de acceso a los materiales varía entre las tres instituciones y eso es algo que puede entenderse a partir de la función que cada una asigna a los componentes de sus colecciones y al tipo de vínculo que propone para los diferentes tipos de públicos que a ellas acuden. La presencia física de los materiales apela de distintas maneras a los visitantes dependiendo del tipo de institución que se trate. En el caso concreto de los museos públicos, se apela a un testimonio compartido, una huella a partir de la cual se propone la construcción de imaginarios de identidad, representación y memoria. La visita al museo como hecho social invoca al espacio colectivo y la discusión compartida. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 66 Amoxcalli. Un análisis sobre la dimensión ontológica de los códices en los archivos, bibliotecas y museos Instrumentalidad.En el caso de los materiales que pertenecen a un archivo, al ser comúnmente registros únicos de la actividad humana, adquieren la dimensión de pruebas. Son, al mismo tiempo, entidades únicas y fragmentarias ya que son insustituibles y si se les mira de forma aislada difícilmente pueden dar cuenta cabal de la información de que son portadores. En el caso de los libros, dependen casi totalmente de los códigos lingüísticos y son portadores de información auto-contenida (aunque existe información valiosísima en su soporte material). Podríamos decir que son unidades de sentido dentro de un código compartido. Finalmente, los objetos resguardados en los museos cumplen una doble función de representatividad y alteridad ya que a través de ellos se pretende dar una visión de la cultura material del mundo, pero inevitablemente se requiere hacer una selección tanto de lo que compone un horizonte cognitivo para su incorporación al museo, como de los materiales que se encuentran en los acervos y en otras colecciones para su exposición. Su dimensión de alteridad proviene de la necesidad de un contexto para poder interpretarlos ya que señalan siempre la ausencia de algo que no está presente y ante la cual cobraban sentido. Especificidad del museo. Al pensar de nuevo en los códices, podemos ver que al entrar al museo, se produce una apertura en su dimensión ontológica. La acción museográfica pone en tensión el código de interpretación, lo comparte como propuesta hacia el público. Ahí se agolpan las taxonomías, las miradas, las intenciones de conocimiento por parte de los expertos y se propone un código que los separa del resto de las cosas y los enmarca a la vez en una propuesta de sentido. Es el páregon planteado por Derrida (2001), pero que ha de ser activado por una multiplicidad de personas cuyas intenciones de conocimiento y experiencias son distintas. El museo es una suerte de máquina ontológica que superpone los discursos curatoriales a las taxonomías clasificatorias y a la vez pone en suspenso la pregunta por el qué hay, qué es esto, cómo se relacionaba con el mundo y cómo ha venido relacionándose con los distintos a lo largo del tiempo, para finalmente abrir la pregunta a qué es eso para ustedes, para mí, para nosotros. Pareciera que esa antigua práctica del Amoxohtoca, seguir el camino del libro, se encuentra permanentemente en estado de tensión en el museo, pues cada vez que nos hacemos la pregunta por aquello que está ante nosotros, tenemos que confrontar los diferentes modelos de mundo que se hacen presentes. Si los museos actuales ya no responden al modelo enciclopédico, es necesario cuestionar el estatuto de los objetos museales, de la misma forma que necesitamos comprender desde dónde se habla, cómo se producen y proponen modelos de mundo en cada museo. Finalmente seguir el camino del libro otorga la posibilidad de trazar las trayectorias de las diversas producciones ontológicas que se han realizado en torno a una ‘cosa’. Al hacerlo, podemos indagar sobre los modelos de mundo en los que estamos imbuidos y por eso mismo poder reinventarlos. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Alejandro Sabido Sánchez Juárez 67 Referencias Agamben, G. (2006). ¿Qué es un dispositivo? Roma: Nottetempo. Arendt, H. (2005). De la Historia a la Acción. Barcelona, Buenos Aires, México: Paidós. Arizpe, L., & Tostado, M. (1993). El patrimonio intelectual: un legado del pensamiento. In E. Florescano (Comp.). El patrimonio cultural de México. México: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes; Fondo de Cultura Económica. pp. 63-90 Chevallier, J. (2011). Fenomenología del presentar. Literatura: teoría, historia, crítica 13(1), 49-83 Derrida, J. (2001). La verdad en pintura. Buenos Aires: Paidos. Fernández Abad, F. J. (2008). Consideraciones referentes a la lógica mercantilista en las bibliotecas públicas. Un alegato contra el AGCS y sus implicaciones. Documentación de las Ciencias de la Información, 31, 45-65. Gibson, L. (2008). In Defense of Instrumentality.Cultural Trends, 17(4), 247257. Gill, P. (Ed.). (2001). The Public Library Service: The IFLAUNESCOGuidelines for Development. Munich: Saur. Heidegger, M. (1953). La cosa.Cordoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (1997). Dialéctica del iluminismo. Hermes. ICA-UNESCO (2011). Declaración universal sobre los archivos: International Council of the Archives ICOM (2007). Estatutos del Consejo Internacional de Museos. Viena: UNESCO. Kant, E. (2003). Critica de la razón pura. Buenos Aires: Losada Kant, E. (2004).Contestación a la pregunta: ¿Qué es la Ilustración? InAramayo, R. (Ed.), ¿Qué es la Ilustración? y otros escritos de ética, política y filosofía de la historia (pp. 85-98). España: Alianza Editorial Kellert, S., Longino, H., & Waters, K. (2006). Introduction: The pluralist stance. Scientific pluralism.Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. Vol XIX, VII-XXIX. Latour, B. (2013).Investigación sobre los modos de existencia, Una antropología de los modernos. Buenos Aires: Paidos. León-Portilla, M. (1997). El binomio oralidad y códices en Mesoamérica. Estudios de cultura náhuatl, vol. 27 Lombardi, O., & Pérez, A. (2011). Lenguaje, ontología y relaciones interteóricas: en favor de un genuino pluralismo ontológico. Arbor 187(747), 43-52. Meneses, F. (2012). El desastre de la documentación indígena durante la invasión-conquista española en Mesoamérica. LIS Critique (Library and Information Science Critique): Journal of the Sciences of Information Recorded in Documents (Crítica Bibliotecológica: Revista de las Ciencias de la Información Documental), 4(2), 20-32. Moulines, C. U. (1980). Ontosemántica de las teorías. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía 10.1, 25-42. Olivé, L. (2015). El pluralismo epistemológico y ontológico de Ulises Moulines. Tevista CTS, 28, vol. 10,115-122. Pomian, K. (1997). Historia cultural, historia de los semióforos. En J.-P. Rioux & J.-F. Sirinelli (Eds).Para una historia cultural (pp. 79-107). México: Taurus. Putnam, H. (1988). Razón, Verdad e Historia, Madrid: Tecnos. Quincy, A. de (1815). Considérations morales sur la destination des ouvrages de l’art. Paris:imprimerie de Crapelet. Quincy, A. de (2007). Cartas a Miranda. Nausícaä. Rayón, I. (1854). Archivos de México. En Diccionario universal de historia y geografía. Vol. 5. México: Tipografía De Rafael. Scheiner, T. (2006). Museología e interpretación de la realidad: el discurso de la historia. ICOFOM Study Series, 35, 60-67. Swinney, G. (2013). Towards an Historical Geography of a ‘National’ Museum: The Industrial Museum of Scotland, the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art and the Royal Scottish Museum, 18541939.Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 68 Amoxcalli. Un análisis sobre la dimensión ontológica de los códices en los archivos, bibliotecas y museos Turner, J. (2010). Ontological pluralism.The Journal of Philosophy, 107.1, 534. van Mensch, P. (1990). Methodological Museology; or, Towards a Theory of Museum Practice (pp. 141-157). In S. Pearce (Ed.), Objects of knowledge. van Mensch, P. (1992). Toward a methodology of museology. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Zagreb Resumen Para analizar lo específico de los museos en relación con archivos y bibliotecas, se toman como punto de partida los códices como entidades que han formado parte de las colecciones de las citadas instituciones. La noción mexica Amoxotoca, “seguir el camino del libro” abre paso a un tipo de producción ontológica que tiene lugar en los museos y que se sitúa de forma problemática ante el proyecto de la Ilustración. Para desarrollar esa dimensión ontológica, se acude a la filosofía de la ciencia, a las formas en que se responde actualmente a la pregunta ¿qué es? y se analiza hasta qué punto esta pregunta se encuentra determinada por contextos específicos. En concreto, se analizan las formas de producir ontologías y relaciones sociales y de instrumentalizar los objetos de los 5 acervos * de museos, archivos y bibliotecas. De este análisis se concluye que en los museos se produce una apertura de la dimensión ontológica que permite analizar la coexistencia de diferentes mundos. Seguir el camino del libro implica en este texto el estudio de las múltiples formas de objetivación a partir de cosas y la relación entre esta acción y el devenir museológico. Palabras claves: Ontología, especificidad y contexto. pluralismo, epistemología, amoxotoca, Abstract Amoxcalli. An Analysis of the Ontological Dimension of Codices in Museums, Libraries, and Archives To analyze the specifics of museums in relation to archives and libraries, codices, as entities that have been part of these collections, are taken as a starting point. The ancient Aztec word Amoxotoca, "follow the path of the book", gives way to a kind of ontological production that happens in museums, which is problematic if confronted with the enlightenment project. To develop this ontological dimension, we turn to insights from the philosophy of science. We examine the ways in which the philosophy of science currently answers the question “What is?” and to what extent this question is determined by clearly defined contexts. Specifically, the ways of producing ontologies, social relations, and instrumentalization of objects in collections of museums, libraries, and archives are analyzed. This analysis concludes that, in museums, an opening of the ontological dimension occurs, which allows us to analyze the coexistence of different worlds. “To follow the path of the book” in this paper implies the study of multiple forms of objectification from things and the relationship of this action in museological transformations. Keywords:Ontology, pluralism, epistemology, amoxotoca, specificity and context. A lo largo del texto se emplea la pablara “acervos” para referirse a las colecciones de museos, archivos y bibliotecas. En otros países de lengua castellana se les denomina ”fondos”. 5 ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Textual Danger in MLA Convergence Jennifer Harris Curtin University - Perth Australia As museums, libraries, and archives have converged, it has become a trope to say that they have returned to their original administrative grouping. Note, for example, these titles of papers on convergence: “What’s old is new again” (Given & MacTavish, 2010) and “Coming back together?” (Marcum, 2014). For some writers, the fact of their th th separation in the late 19 century and into the first part of the 20 century is the exceptional fact in the histories of these culture repositories, not their contemporary convergence. The risk inherent in such observations, especially when they are used to allay fears about convergence, is that they tend to gloss over the radical th narrative changes that museums underwent in the late 20 century. The emphasis on narrative in exhibition work and, therefore, the recognition of the textual potency of representation, ought to be among the key elements in assessing the philosophic impact of convergence. Of signal importance also is the fact that museum narratives are spatialized (Hillier & Tzortzi, 2006; Leahy, 2012), however, this is beyond the scope of my thoughts here. This paper argues that the implication of invoking 19 century, and earlier, groupings of museums, libraries, and archives in the Western world as evidence for the natural alliance of what are sometimes called “memory institutions” (Robinson, 2012, p. 413) is an unwitting denial of recent museology and the textual advances of museums. This paper starts by reflecting on the historical co-existence of the three types of institution and the fact that this lends support to convergence pressures. It then examines the confusing appearance of epistemological similarities, which might suggest that convergence would not create substantial changes to their functioning. Finally, it considers the dominant role of narrative in museums, arguing that it is so fundamental a difference from the dominant work of archives and libraries that full convergence would be likely to be achieved at the high price of the loss of representation through narrative, which is one of the chief philosophical advancements of museums in the last century. th It is the potential loss of narrative as a result of convergence that looms as the chief textual danger. This paper uses text in the semiotic sense, that is, “a meaningful structure understood as being composed of signs. The meaning of a text is determined by rules (or codes)” (Edgar & Sedgwick, 1999, p. 415). Textuality, in the semiotic sense, refers to the politics of meaning, the instability and flux of meaning generation, and the problematic dialogism of communication. Self-conscious acts of museum representation activate rich textuality. It is this paradigmatic difference between museums and the library-archive world that is at stake. The museum narrative experience is one of history plus imagination, a lyrical environment that fosters poetic engagement by visitors. It is a world of connotation, political provocation, visitor performance, and empowerment. 70 Textual Danger in MLA Convergence By comparison, denotative acts of collecting and cataloguing are rich in a different way. I acknowledge that libraries and archives also produce exhibitions, but they are often on a much smaller scale in comparison to museum exhibitions, object-focused rather than ideafocused, only tentatively politicised, and not part of the wider narratives of the institution. The overlap of the production of exhibitions in all three institutions, therefore, is not sufficient to explain or justify convergence and fails to address the potential risk to sophisticated museum textuality. Together in the past One of the justifications for convergence is that this cultural movement is little more than a return to a historic, coherent approach to memory preservation, that museums, libraries, and archives were once almost indistinguishable, especially when their various elements are traced back to Renaissance cabinets of curiosities (Marcum, 2014, p. 80). Given and McTavish (2010) describe, for example, how linking the three types of institution in the UK, US, and th Canada in the 19 century was held to be good for educating the lower classes and a sign of civilization for the wider community, as also described by Hooper-Greenhill (2000, p. 14). This section considers this problematic link, first, through the historic slide together of museums and libraries via looking and reading as key pedagogical modes and, secondly, through the philosophic impact of a possible return to this approach in museum learning. Acts of reading and learning have been highly significant in the historic merging of libraries and museums. Nineteenth century learning through a combination of looking and reading is described by Given and MacTavish (2010), who illustrate the historical process of these two pedagogical modes coming together and, through them, the gradual merging of museums and libraries. They describe the history of the Natural History Society of New Brunswick, established th in 1862, as an exemplar of 19 century pedagogy. It started with an emphasis on the vital importance of visual contemplation of the object under study. Initially, looking was understood to reveal more knowledge than reading alone. Reading complemented looking, it did not suffice in itself. The proponents of the natural history collections in Saint John and elsewhere similarly held that when people looked intensively at material objects they gained access to information that books could not provide. (Given & McTavish, 2010, p. 10) Looking, however, was later complemented by reading. Small reading rooms and book collections were established to accompany material culture collections. The complementary understanding of reading and looking was not unusual, extending beyond natural history societies to other kinds of museums and the broader educational system in North America. In 1887, Luigi Palma di Cesnola, the first director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, argued that museums were in effect libraries of objects … The notion that material objects could be “read” like books, even though they were ultimately distinct from printed sources, was also encouraged. (Given & McTavish, 2010, p. 11) ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Jennifer Harris 71 It is important to distinguish the idea of an object being “read” in the th th 19 century from late 20 century concepts of reading. In the former, the idea of reading an object encompassed the centrality of looking, as if one were reading a book, skimming its words and identifying its th st denotative meaning. By comparison, in the late 20 and into the 21 centuries, under the impact of semiotic theories, reading is philosophized as a dynamic process of meaning generation that is understood to emerge from three components, first, the original text, secondly, the engaged viewer or reader and, thirdly, the shifting contexts of production, historic meanings, and contemporary readings. It was reading, as a process of accessing denotative meaning, that th motivated the 19 century establishment of libraries as attachments to museums. They were intended to provide background information designed to complement the knowledge gained by intense scrutiny. th During the 20 century, however, the role of the librarian and museum curator became strongly differentiated (Given & McTavish, 2010, p. 16), and the two types of institution eventually split with separate professional staff training. The past differentiated institutional roles of curators are changing, while contemporary roles now draw attention to themselves. In focusing on the expression of narrative in this paper, I am choosing a key difference among these three institutions, rather than a similarity. The rise of the celebrity curator (Balzer, 2014), for example, is an emerging shared feature of art galleries and some museums, note, for example, the work and status of Hans-Ulrich Obrist in galleries and, in social history museums, the role of Fred Wilson. The experience of many western places, however, is not connected to the new energy of the curator. The library evolved through much of th the 20 century to become a more significant and vibrant communityth educational institution than the museum, which by the mid-20 century, in many places in the Western world, was focused on research and housed static and moribund displays of objects. In the th late 20 century, museums surfaced as treasured community assets because of the rise of historical consciousness in response to impacts of globalization, tourism, and widespread valuing of material culture. To focus on returning the three institutions to their earlier cohabitation and institutional lack of distinction is to accept implicitly the return of the museum object, philosophically, back to its pre-semiotic status. Pre-semiotically, it was understood to contain meaning quite outside reading and interpretive contexts. Robinson (2012, pp. 414415) notes that the idea of the “memory institution” has been taken up enthusiastically by policymakers, the idea of the coherence of memory being the logical glue for the three institutions, but the significance of the different styles of presentation of objects is brushed aside. There is the danger of a philosophic slip back to the pre-semiotic status of the object, book, or document as denoting meaning outside the act of reading and outside the framework of its collecting institution, that is, the home of the object would be likely to become irrelevant in interpreting the object. (What would the Mona Lisa mean outside of the Louvre?) Robinson (2012) observes also the significant historic power of the technological innovation of digital searching in reducing the status of the object. All three types of institutions are now able to provide ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 72 Textual Danger in MLA Convergence digital searches. This gives the impression of, first, similarity between types of organisations and, secondly, the transcendence of the object or document from its institutional context. The meaning of the object thus appears to be enduring, stable, and beyond interpretation. From this point of view, museums libraries and archives are differentiated primarily by the typological distinctions of their collections (objects, books, documents) that seem arbitrary and redundant in an age when users, with the aid of digital technologies, can bypass the institutional gatekeepers and access collections directly. (Robinson, 2012, p. 415) Featherstone (2000), however, on contemplating the inexhaustible st reach of collecting fever in the 21 century, speculates on an archive of radical direct access and its potential to overwhelm the searcher; he calls this “disintermediation”. He ponders whether the public might request the organization of material by institutions to be reinstated. Will disintermediation, the direct access to cultural records and resources from those outside cultural institutions, lead to a decline in intellectual and academic power or will the increased scope and complexity overwhelm the untutored user and lead to greater demands for reintermediation, involving the context framing and mapping skills of cultural intermediaries? (Featherstone, 2000, p. 166) Writing 14 years after Featherstone, Marcum (2014), by comparison, seems to gloss over the role of cultural mediation as she focuses on the demand of users for information with no apparent interest in its source. For those of us concerned with the history of cultural institutions, the collaborative movement takes on an additional dimension … We are recombining cultural resource fields and curatorial service professions that have too long been separated. (Marcum, 2014, p. 80) For those of us who are attached to the curatorial organization of archives, libraries, and museums, there is little doubt that we would be likely to request the resumption of cultural mediation. The great ease of radically direct access to collection records suggests that a request for institutional framing of information would not be widespread. Under the impact of digital searching possibilities, therefore, the institutional contexts of collections are in danger of being disregarded. That is, the mission and philosophy of the individual institution that collected the object, book, or document could be held to be of little or no significance in meaning. The items th in the collection could be seen to have slipped back to their 19 century denotative status without the textual framing of the institution. In order to access knowledge – implicitly understood as stable knowledge – all that one would need do is look, supplemented by reading. This epistemological slip and potential intellectual loss are not widely addressed during convergence debates. Institutional similarities A rationalist epistemology, once shared by museums, libraries, and archives has been almost abandoned. Departure from this epistemology has not, however, resulted in the appearance of a shared replacement of approaches to learning, another crucial difference that is rarely taken into account in the convergence ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Jennifer Harris 73 debate. Learning from professionally curated exhibitions, which start from the assumption that museum objects are to be approached as representational, is very different from the relatively simple provision of access to documents and books. The educational difference is possibly obscured by the fact that all three institutions usually accept semiotic theories of textuality and understand objects, books, and documents as deriving meaning from contexts - with the concept of text applying equally to objects, books, and documents. Texts are understood as politicised and unstable. It is not difficult to see, therefore, why this dramatic epistemological shift - from understanding the concept of meaning as being something that is found through denotative information, to its opposite, the volatility of textuality - has led naturally, for many people, to a broad acceptance of convergence as a natural philosophic (and happy economic) institutional fit. Volatile textuality demands an active visitor/reader. It is the conception of the visitor as a creative generator of meaning that now provides the institutional similarity for all three in practical textual terms. A key reason for considering that convergence for the three institutional styles is appropriate emerges, therefore, from their mutual orientation to their various visitors and communities in the late th st 20 and early 21 centuries. A celebratory mood of discovering multiple post-colonial and post-modern publics has accompanied the move to converge. Extensive public programming, collections that reflect diverse publics and specific exhibitions targeted at children and minority groups have become the norm for all three. Despite the shared approaches to visitors and reading, this paper argues that it is not sufficient to justify institutional convergence and results in neglect of fundamental textual differences. The reality is that libraries and archives take as their dominant roles the acquisition of documents, their storage, and the creation of access for visitors either in their buildings or online. Their work centres on making documents available. By contrast, museums collect and store objects, and make them broadly available when visible storage is implemented. Museums also take on another task – they create selfconscious narratives for learning as part of their everyday work. Narratives rely on the presence and engagement of the visitor for their meaning; this is an essential difference between museums and the other two institution types. Museums are now in dialogue with their visitors (Given & McTavish, 2010, p. 21), they set out to expose institutional choices to their visitors in a highly self-reflexive manner (Kavanagh, 2004). The role of the visitor is, therefore, tangled and complex, making convergence seem natural and common sense while also obfuscating discussion about it. In a nutshell, libraries and archives construct their work for the visitor, but museums are constructed through visitor learning. On one hand, the philosophic conception of the visitor seems to explain why convergence is a natural future state for the three institutions, but, on the other hand, reflection on the status of the active, learning visitor in museum narrative undermines arguments for convergence and their implicit assumption of stable meaning. Strangely, this assumption sits side by side with its direct opposite, that is, the institutional acceptance of semiotics and unstable meaning. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 74 Textual Danger in MLA Convergence Museum narrative The final section of this paper draws together visitor and narrative threads. I differentiate here between the deliberate narrative adopted in exhibition work and the concept of the implicit narrative. It is widely accepted by librarians and archivists that there are implicit narratives expressed through collecting and cataloguing in libraries (Robinson, 2012, p. 416) and that there is no neutrality in archiving (Cook, 2009, pp. 515-517). The fantasy of the neutrality of the collecting museum is described by Hooper-Greenhill (2000). She compares the function of maps to that of what she calls “modernist museums”, that is, museums engaged in the apparent depiction of reality. The modernist museum depicts “reality” and shows “the way things are” in a seemingly neutral manner. Both museums and maps work through a combination of word and image. In maps, these fix a name and a shape to a place. In the modernist museum the texts next to the objects signal how the object should be viewed… Hierarchies of value are constructed, inclusions and exclusions made, the self and the other separated. Maps do this conceptually, with drawings and two-dimensional symbols. The museum does this with things, which are understood as fragments of reality itself. (HooperGreenhill, 2000, p.18) It seems extraordinary that it was as recently as the year 2000 that such a description of museum institutions should have seemed broadly the reality – “the objectification of reality and the denial of subjectivity” (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000, p. 106). Museums, of course, continue to have implicit narratives framing their collections and catalogues and have always used artefacts in a connotative manner, wittingly or unwittingly. Powerful, creative narratives have sprung from deadpan placements of museum objects with limited descriptive labels. Implicit narratives often function below the threshold of articulation for many museum workers, for example the triumph of the nation or the social and economic progress associated with mining or agriculture. This type of narrative is almost hidden in the protocols of collecting activity. It is very different from the deliberate storytelling undertaken by museums, often controversially, which is designed to call attention to itself; indeed, such storytelling has become the bedrock of contemporary exhibition and relies on the active role of visitors to make sense. Robinson observes that, in recognising that while ideologies implicitly frame catalogues in all three institutions, “it is problematic to equate them with curatorial interventions applied to museum collections … only museums … actively and self-consciously author historical narratives through their objects” Robinson (2012, p. 423). Museum exhibition narrative starts from the lyrical ideal that museum work is about representation, that it is not limited by denotation, and that material culture can be used imaginatively to tell stories. I now turn to the central issue of the place of self-conscious museum narrative in the MLA convergence project. Just as the attachment of libraries to museums in the 19 century led to the atrophying of museums (Given & McTavish, 2010), so danger th looms again. In the 19 century, libraries and museums worked from the same basic epistemology, but once the role of reading in th ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Jennifer Harris 75 education was elevated over observation, the fading of museums in community intellectual life commenced. Now, with MLA convergence, the danger is that the leap museums have taken into provocative narrative could be reversed under the pressure to conform to the style of collecting and cataloguing undertaken by libraries and archives. The fact that some commentators regard convergence as unproblematic reveals that they have not observed the differences between museums and other memory institutions. Although it is evident that catalogues order experience, a different kind of ordering is found in the experience of exhibition narratives. Hetherington (2006) argues that it was the experience of modernity th that was the focus of the museum at the end of the 18 century. Many writers trace the multiple lines of museum evolution through a variety of pre-existing institutions, but Hetheringon says that it is its direct engagement with issues of experience (whether that be the experience of art, history, civilisations, ethnographic encounter or locality expressed in material cultural form) that marks it out as something new. (Hetherington, 2006, p. 599) Hetherington draws on Benjamin’s (1973a; 1973b) and Koselleck’s (2004) distinction between, on the one hand, the broad sense of an experience of life’s wholeness that was characteristic of the premodern experience and, on the other, the experience of fragmentation that is characteristic of modernity. Some of this analysis was pre-dated by Nora’s (1989) work on the sensation of being ripped from an everyday environment of memory and Harvey’s (1989) discussion of time-space compression: the experience of the crushing of space as an effect of globalization and the loss of time through the speed of communication and travel. Hetherington (2006, p. 600) describes the awesome loss of “a shared topos in which a community existed as a knowable whole to its members” and the disorientation that followed that loss, a disorientation that we all struggle with every day. In the past, he says, people dwelt in this shared topos in a time that was perceived to be continuous and natural and were able to experience the present as a present. There was no sense of emergence, trajectory or novelty in such experience... With modernity comes disruption of the social relations that underpin such a form of experience. (Hetherington 2006, p. 600) One of our central responses to this crisis, according to Hetherington (2006, p. 600), has been a “shift from natural to historical time … as cultural understanding seeks to reorientate itself to radically changed circumstances”. Western museums’ play with narrative through material culture has been one of the most powerful ways that this time shift has been expressed. The museum is one of the key modern institutions in which this sense of experience as lack and disconnection from a natural topos is addressed… it seeks through its display regimes, their narratives and ordering logics to provide people with a sense that they are living in a world where our uncertain and complex set of experiences make sense. (Hetherington, 2006, p. 600) Museums of social history work with everyday objects, solid and palpable in their physicality, to address “this sense of experience as ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 76 Textual Danger in MLA Convergence lack”. Visitors can see that the objects have endured, surviving from times of coherent community experience. The historical structuring and arrangement of the objects gives reassurance that there is still some order in the world. Although many museums now seem to prioritize ideas over objects, see, for example, as long ago as Vergo (1989), it is in fact material, mostly non-documentary, culture that creates the first difference between museum exhibitions and other institutions. Narratives are produced through the touchstone of material culture, giving visitors both the solidity of objects and the creative, speculative intangibility of narrative explorations. Visitors are invited to use their imaginations and memories to amplify curatorial stories, producing personalized, often politicised meanings. Nascent responses to the fracturing experience of modernity th appeared in museums in the early 19 century. Pearse (2007), for example, uses the concept of spectacle to describe William Bullock’s Egyptian Hall, also known as London Museum or Bullock’s Museum at 22 Piccadilly, London. This English example is used here to illustrate the beginning of self-conscious narrative-based exhibition. The Egyptian-inspired building was erected in 1812 and used for natural history display, but Bullock had displayed animals before this time. He used the Linnaean classification system to order his taxidermy animals with accompanying catalogue numbers, but seems to have been subject to visitors’ complaints. From the viewer’s perspective, this would have been confusing not only because of the need to understand the system itself, but also because Bullock’s presentation of it must have been inevitably bitty and disjointed, given the large gaps in his collection. He needed to please his public, and matching numbers on the objects and in the catalogue Companion proved much more intelligible. (Pearse, 2007, p. 17) In other ways also, Bullock needed to soften the rigidity of the Linnaean system in order to please his public. Naturalistic settings were created, still knowable to us today from an aquatint of 1810. Five ceiling-height artificial trees, one a coconut palm, are dotted about; two of the trees have very large snakes twined up them and two have birds in their branches. Between the trees stand large animals and birds, including an elephant, a zebra, a bear, a kangaroo and at least four birds including what seems to be a black swan. (Pearse, 2007, p. 18) Ironically, the settings were accompanied by juxtapositions of animals that would be impossible outside the worlds of taxidermy and zoos. So, on one hand, Bullock began to produce a narrative of exotic vegetation and animal interaction but, on the other, grouped the animals more or less scientifically. He also produced more deliberate narratives; the evidence for this is from a surviving display of a fighting tiger and a large snake. The snake, a Python reticulates, is 5.7 metres long (Pearse, 2007, p. 24). Although this is the correct length for a python, it was achieved by Bullock for the exhibition by the joining of two specimens. Further artificiality is evident in the fact that the python’s head is carved from wood. Pearse (2007, p. 24) says that Bullock was sometimes forced to use composites and to manufacture them in order to create “a show that was as complete as possible” in a taxonomic sense. He must also have felt pressured to depart from a strict Linnaean order because he was unable to show a complete display of animals due to gaps in his collection. He seems ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 77 Jennifer Harris to have been driven, therefore, by visitor expectations of two discursively different elements: classification completeness and, simultaneously, high drama. The violent interlocking of the tiger and the python, reproduced in a terrifying photograph by Pearse (2007, p. 25), elicits dread from the viewer as one imagines being caught in the ferocious jaws. The visitor, therefore, is inserted into the drama and invited to respond imaginatively. The example of Bullock’s Museum and numerous others show that the world of fairground drama was an inspiration to English museums th in the early 19 century. With the progress of science throughout the th 19 century in Europe, however, narratives became muted as they were replaced with displays of rigid taxonomies. Narratives re-emerged strongly in the late 20 century, a timing coincident with the disrupting experience of the fragility of modernity described by Hetherington (2006) as one of the hallmarks of contemporary culture. Museum narratives adapted especially well to the demands of the exhibition of post-colonialism, a central disruptive experience of modernity. Contemporary museum narratives are able to cover broad historical periods while providing often heart-rending emotionality through breakouts from the main narrative to include individual stories of particular people. The individual stories illustrate the broader story by providing colourful detail and also foster visitor engagement with historical characters on a human level. The textual move between general histories of, for example, nation building, conquest, forced migration, environmental destruction, and so on are accompanied by stories of specific, individual people. This steady movement between the generality of history and the particularity of individual people has become an established museological rhythm and engages visitors powerfully at an emotional level. th The plethora of historical films and novels also appears to address the bedevilling time shifts of modernity, identified by Hetherington. Television particularly is full of historical series; noteworthy is Downton Abbey, a six-season UK series that charts the collapsing th power of the British aristocracy in the 20 century. Following on from Hetherington’s comment that the museum is positioned uniquely through its narrative style to address the fragility of modern experience, one needs to query why novels and films do not also take on the role. It is beyond the scope of this paper to address this question in detail, but it is important to note that the pressure of realism as the contemporary mode of storytelling floods film and novel narratives. Realism offers a reassuring sense of closure. Closure, however, tends to draw a line under the story, as if the characters’ experiences are co-terminus with the events. As the story draws to an end, the chief characters’ conflicts are resolved. The family at the heart of Downton Abbey, for example, provides the textual focus for the closure of realism. Although the characters have uncertain fortunes, our riding of those fortunes with them has the textual effect of reducing our experience to the experience of the characters, despite the script’s attention to significant historical events. This is because our emotional involvement with individual characters is often more intense in realist texts than our need to use their stories to make sense of the wider world. Our identification with the characters also tends to reduce the likelihood of us taking the narrative experiences beyond the world of the story. Our emotional involvement can have the effect of reducing political awareness. This is a most restrictive aspect of realism if one wishes to use realist narrative to foster political engagement. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 78 Textual Danger in MLA Convergence Although Hetherington notes that museum narratives tackle uncertainty while providing reassurance to the visitor, they do not do so through the emotional closure characteristic of the realism of films and novels. By contrast, the world of the museum narrative is one of provocation. Museums’ narrative forces us to look beyond the museum and, in idealized circumstances, become politically alive. Museum representation through narrative is unlike any other, despite its discursive links: to cinema and theatre in terms of public performance; to fairgrounds in terms of the experience of shock and awe; to shopping in terms of the inspection of objects; and to all of these in terms of performative demands on the visitor. Museum narrative elicits emotional engagement with a lyrical, poetic dimension set against historical events. Recognition of the fact of representation cuts across curatorial domination and empowers visitors to interrogate museum stories. Conclusion The visitor is celebrated by archives, libraries, and museums. Further, all three institution types concur: visitors/readers are fundamental to the generation of meaning. These are significant philosophic similarities. The role of visitors in the exhibition narrative process, however, highlights the core difference between museums and their companion memory institutions. At the heart of the narrative process is the work of representation. Museum curators grasp that their work is focused on representation, particularly in a deliberate and self-conscious way as expressed via narrative. Museum narrative, with its multiple poetic possibilities, offers communities a bulwark against the authoritarianism that is threatened in a dominant curatorial voice. The narrative process helps institutions to guard against the loss of institutional identity (Parker, 2011, p. 187), encourages diverse interpretations, and empowers individual visitors. How ironic that museums should undergo pressure in the early 21 century to converge with libraries and archives, after having gone through the long process of separating themselves from the other two and finding another way to present their collections. The spectacular rise of self-conscious museum narrative has been a vast achievement in textual terms. Further convergence would be likely to be a retrograde step. st References Balzer, D. (2014). Curationism: How Curatoring Took Over the Art World and Everything Else. Toronto: Coach House Books. Benjamin, W. (1973a).The storyteller.In Illuminations. (pp. 83-107). London: Fontana. Benjamin, W. (1973b).On some motifs in Baudelaire.In Illuminations. (pp.152-196).London:Fontana. Cook, T. (2009). The archive(s) is a foreign country: historians, archivists and the changing archival landscape. The Canadian Historical Review, 90(3), 497-534. Edgar, A., & Sedgwick, P. (Eds.). (1999). Cultural Theory: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge. Featherstone, M. (2000).Archiving cultures.The British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 161-184. Given, L., &McTavish, L. (2010). What’s old is new again: the reconvergence of libraries, archives and museums in the digital age. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 80(1), 7-32. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Jennifer Harris 79 Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Post-Modernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hetherington, K. (2006). Museum. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2-3), 597603. Hillier, B., &Tzortzi, K. (2006). Space syntax: the language of museum space. In Macdonald, S. (Ed.). A Companion to Museum Studies. (pp. 282-301). Maldon, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell Publishing. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2000). Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London: Routledge. Kavanagh, G., (2004). Melodrama, pantomime or portrayal?: Representing ourselves and the British Past through exhibitions in history museums. In Carbonell, B. (Ed.).Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts. (pp. 348-355). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures Past. New York: Columbia University Press. Leahy, H. (2012). Museum Bodies: The Politics and Practices of Visiting and Viewing. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Marcum, D. (2014). Archives, libraries, museums: Coming back together? Information and Culture: A Journal of History, 49(1), 74-89. Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de memoire. Representations, 26, 7-25. Parker, S. (2011).Convergence of archives, libraries and museum.IFLA Journal, 37(3), 187-8. Pearse, S. (2007). William Bullock: Inventing a visual language of objects. In S. Knell, S. MacLeod & S. Watson (Eds.).Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed. (pp. 15-27). London and New York: Routledge. Robinson, H. (2012). Remembering things differently: Museums, libraries and archives as memory institutions and the implications for convergence.Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(4), 413-429. Vergo, P. (1989). The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books. Abstract The convergence of museums, libraries, and archives challenges museums to maintain their insistence on the intellectual gains to be derived from selfconscious representation through exhibition narrative. Confusingly, all three types of institution have a rationalist epistemological background, and all three now work from an epistemology of unstable, politicised meaning. The similarities, however, mask significant differences. Although all three institutions collect and catalogue, the deliberate acts of representation that are undertaken by museums in the construction of narratives mark museums out as fundamentally different. This paper argues that museums have changed paradigmatically, moving away from their long-term institutional companions. Convergence is likely to endanger the textual advances that museums have achieved. Key words: convergence, narrative, rationalist epistemology, representation Résumé Le Risque Textuel de la Convergence La convergence des musées, bibliothèques et archives constitue pour les musées un défi de maintenir leur insistance sur les acquis intellectuels que l'on dérive de la représentation consciente à travers le tissu narratif d'une exposition. Le fait que ces trois types d'institutions soient issus d'une tradition rationaliste épistémologique et que toutes trois opèrent maintenant à partir d'une épistémologie au sens instable et politisé, est une source de confusion. Ces similarités masquent cependant des différences significatives. Bien que ces trois institutions collectionnent et cataloguent, les actions de représentation entreprises par les musées pour construire leurs récits en font des institutions fondamentalement différentes. Cet article soutient que les musées ont changé de façon paradigmatique, se démarquant de leurs compagnons institutionnels de toujours. Une convergence aurait toutes les chances de menacer les avancées textuelles faites par les musées. Mots clés: convergence, récit, épistémologie rationaliste, représentation. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Documentary Sources of Museology: Reflections and Perspectives Francisca Hernández Hernández Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Epistemological approach to museology documentation approach of memory as a Today more than ever, we need to think of museology as an intellectual exercise that helps us establish a dialogue with other systems of thought, so that we can perceive reality in all its complexity. If we regard museology as a social science, we cannot deny that it possesses a strongly interdisciplinary character that impels it to collaborate with other branches of knowledge in order to focus interest on the common object of study, the museum and the activity it involves. In consequence, we can say that museology, as a social science, is closely linked to the disciplines involved with documentation of memory in its contribution to a better understanding of society. Moreover, we concur with Davallon (1997, p. 29) in the belief that museology is less and less a “science of the museum” and is increasingly becoming a “science of the treatment of museum objects,” insofar as these are regarded as a heritage and a support for information. The information and communication sciences would, in that case, be called upon to contribute their own fields of knowledge (HernándezHernández, 2006, p. 73). But which are the information sciences? These include all those disciplines whose principal aim is the diffusion of information. Among them, we can cite library science, archival science, documentation, and museology. All belong to different areas of knowledge and provide us with extremely important informative and symbolic capital (QuinteroCastroet al., 2009, p. 205) on the events that have taken place throughout history. Also they furnish a raison d’être for the functions of conservation, processing, analysis, classification, organisation, and diffusion of documents carried out by libraries, archives, museums, and documentation centres. We can define sources of documentary information as “those institutions which provide, amass, manage, transmit or serve information” (Osuna Alarcón,2011, p. 246). When we speak of these sources, we are therefore referring to the documents that are the supports of information, given that the latter is what offers us the possibility of acquiring new documents. In this context, museum objects are considered authentic documents that contribute to promote research. Standard UNE-ISO 5127 (2010) defines a document as any “recorded information that can be considered as a unit in a process of documentation,” while documentation is the “collection and treatment of recorded information in a continuous and systematic fashion that permits its storage, recovery, use and transmission.” The museum, meanwhile, is defined as a “collection of documents of cultural or scientific interest, stored permanently and arranged for 82 Documentary Sources of Museology: Reflections and Perspectives exhibition,” though it is also described as an “organisation whose function consists of the gathering, conservation and exhibition of museum documents.” When library science, archival science, and museology provide us with systematic knowledge, they do so because they start from an analysis of the relationship established by human beings with the reality around them, and which these disciplines collect and update. It is regardless of the institutions they represent or the objectdocuments and treatment techniques they employ. All the information provided to us by the object-documents collected and processed within these disciplines leads us toward a fuller knowledge of the contexts and milieus within which they arose, and of the possible significances they are intended to transmit. From this point of view, they are no longer considered institutions whose basic purpose is custodianship, as initially assumed, instead the emphasis is on their capacity to produce new knowledge (ÁvilaAraújo, 2013, p. 258). Each of these disciplines gathers information on documents and objects, becoming an object of knowledge in itself; that search for knowledge, and its consequent production, is where the three areas meet, as they are called upon to collaborate closely. In this way, they offer greater and greater knowledge of objects and documents, giving rise to a new concept of information. A continual dialogue among the areas, while each retains its specificity without being forced to merge unnecessarily, can help enrich their investigations, the conclusions reached on their theoretical basis, and the functions they perform. Since these disciplines are the repositories for the cultural heritage of humanity, they become places of memory in all its various senses. Libraries offer us bibliographical memory, archives are historical memory, and documentation centres and museums offer cultural memory. All share origins in documentary information and also have the same goal: to act as transmitters of the collective memory of peoples. At the same time, each possesses its own specificity, autonomy and disciplinary identity as a subject to be distinguished from documentary information, which is their object of study and research. We begin on the basis that these areas must be considered part of the social and human sciences, in that social and human phenomena provide their object of study. Employing a methodology of their own that takes into account the specific hermeneutics, phenomenology, didactics, and linguistics of critical theory, they lay bare the way in which we come to know social and human reality. Today’s social sciences cannot turn their back on the transformations experienced by systematic thought, and they need to resort to “multiple epistemologies” (Herrera, 2009, p. 47) closely involved with the multicultural dimension of our society and with different ways of conceiving and explaining reality. The documentary information sciences can make use of these epistemologies, intrinsic to the social sciences, applying them to their object of study, methodology and investigation. All are directed towards work with documents, information, and records that have to be preserved, organised and classified with the purpose of contributing and communicating new knowledge to society. However, let us see how these subjects have evolved theoretically. Since antiquity, libraries, archives, and museums have been viewed as ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Francisca Hernández Hernández 83 institutions whose mission was to preserve and transmit the experiences and knowledge related to the culture of different peoples, which might be manifested either in literary texts or in collections of objects and artwork. From the start, these institutions formed part of the same trunk of knowledge, since they all involve organising and storing documents of every kind, and so had many things in common even if each had its own specificity and procedural techniques (Ortega, 2004, p. 3). Moreover, the origins of the library and museum are closely linked, for there was no museum in ancient times without a library, and no library without art objects, pictures, medals, or coin collections evidencing its encyclopaedic character (López de Prado, 2003, p. 11). If museums are centres for research as well as conservation and exhibition, libraries too are not only essential means of conservation but also instruments for change through the spread of knowledge, where the user becomes someone who deliberately accepts involvement. When we analyse the origins and theoretical evolution, we find many similarities across these institutions. Although it was unclear for some time exactly what the sense of each was, even to the point of some confusion over their respective aims, in fact each has specific functions, while they all use objects, books and documents to preserve and conserve the history of humanity. Such institutions arose with the idea of guarding objects, writings, and documents, and there is clearly a close link between safeguarding objects and documents and preserving memory. José Luis Borges (1998) said the book “is an extension of the memory and the imagination.” We can also say that documentary heritage, of which these places are the repositories, forms part of the collective memory of peoples and is the expression of their cultural and linguistic diversity. In this respect, they are considered institutions of social memory, with an interdisciplinary character; as systems of memory, they form part of the information-processing system of society (García Marco, 2010, p. 61). All these repositories are expected to take care of cultural properties and place them at the service of the society. They cannot then be regarded as mere depots or storehouses, but must be viewed as spaces open to creativity and to the study of their contents, and therefore made accessible to all those who wish to visit or consult them. These institutions arise when human beings try to express their thoughts, ideas, knowledge, and feelings through different written or pictorial techniques, or by creating certain objects and records of knowledge. When these objects acquire material existence, it creates the need to preserve and collect them with a variety of aims, whether religious, literary, artistic, philosophical, or political (ÁvilaAraújo, 2013, p. 238). The creation of different objects on various supports leads them to be subject to various processes of intervention, according to the institutions that take charge of them, in a given period of a syncretic nature, when it will be very hard to tell whether the institution is an archive, a library, or a museum, according to Da Silva (2006). The Renaissance brought a great interest in works created by human sensibility, regarded as genuine works of art that therefore had to be kept and preserved. For this reason, what we know now as library sciences, archival sciences, and museology built up their knowledge on the basis of a patrimonial vision. The development of the ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 84 Documentary Sources of Museology: Reflections and Perspectives Humanities during the Enlightenment paved the way for studies in philosophy, literature, and history, while archives, libraries, and museums became the spaces containing the materials of interest to those branches of knowledge. In this manner, they attracted bibliophiles, literati, historians, and art critics, who then carried out the functions of archivists, librarians, and museologists. Thus these disciplines became the generators of knowledge in fields other than their own (ÁvilaAraújo, 2013, p. 239). However, the French Revolution, the arrival of the modern era, and the rise of positivism in th the 19 century heralded the creation of modern institutions that laid more emphasis on social values, creating national archives, libraries, and museums focused on safeguarding cultural items and preserving historic memory. As the positivist and scientific movements developed in the 18 and th 19 centuries, the auxiliary subjects of archiving, documentation, and museology became increasingly independent and regarded as autonomous disciplines, although closely related to heritage and memory. All have the mission of safeguarding, preserving, and organising cultural elements, whether loose documents, books, or artifacts, which are studied and analysed on the premises of systematic theory. At first, however, not all researchers accepted the methodical and objective character of these disciplines, voicing serious objections motivated by the absence of an epistemological basis. Meanwhile, defenders argued that these subjects could not be compared with pure and natural sciences because heritage varies in technique, materiality, and the spaces where it is preserved. th On the other hand, we may wonder if museology shares the same object as information sciences, and whether it is consequently possible to consider the museum object as a document in terms of documentary information. Library science, archival science, and documentation are all aimed at the transmission of bibliographical, historical, political, cultural, and artistic memory. This is made manifest in the documentary information contained by each approach, and their studies, research, and procedures are dedicated to this task. The same can equally be said of museology, since the museum object also possesses historical, aesthetic, and cognitive characteristics that make it an informative document, closely related to that of the documentary information sciences. Some authors like Quintero Castro (2013, p. IX) distinguish between the disciplines that study documentary information, separating them into general subjects (library sciences, documentation, and information science) and specific disciplines (archival science, bibliography, and museology); they also assert that the similarities and differences existing between these categories are not clear. If we analyse the conceptual aspects of the documentary information subjects, the first question that arises is whether or not it is possible to agree on a definition of the object of study of library science. If so, this will mean defining the discipline’s object of study according to different schools and signalling the points on which they coincide, since the terminology and conceptual diversity is very great. Even so, all these approaches take the world of documentary information as their field of phenomena. While the origin and development of each area is different, they can be said to have reached a point of union and convergence today. What differentiates them is the set of cultural assets they possess and the institutions that hold them, since the function they attribute to documents is always based on the informational content they possess. Homulos (1990) calls the set of ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Francisca Hernández Hernández 85 archives, libraries, and museums “culture collecting institutions”, each one deciding what is to be preserved, managing memory, producing documentary information, and acting as mediators for information by means of books, objects, or series of documents. Therefore the interdisciplinary character of such disciplines now must be analysed on the premises of analogical hermeneutics in order to discern their common elements and discover their differences. For what is it that really distinguishes the information sciences from museology? According to Smit (1999, p. 4), these disciplines, rather like three estranged sisters, have long ignored one another’s theory, methodology, and practice, leading to an emphasis on their differences and specificities rather than their similarities. These differences can be seen through analysis of their nature, their genesis, and the methodology followed in their technical treatment of documents, as well as in the characteristics of the institutions themselves. Archives, libraries, and museums are expected to offer society the world’s memory with the aid of the specific materials they possess, which must be properly managed. Their mission can be only to organise and facilitate public access to information resources. Because their attention is focused differently, however, they employ different methods of selecting, processing, and broadcasting information; their tools and techniques, of course, are different as well. We might say that while archives and libraries have taken words into their custody, museums have inclined more toward the protection of objects (Morero González, 2006, p. 98) and, above all, of what lies behind them. The information sciences focus more on the gnoseological dimension of knowledge production, which is closely related to mathematics, logic, and new technologies. Their task is to study the properties of communication processes that can operate in archives and libraries. Furthermore, they must attempt to explain the conceptual and methodological foundations of the systems used to manage gathered information. According to Da Silva (2002, p. 577ff), library science and archival science, like documentation and museology, were originally constituted as modern methods on the basis of a patrimonialist paradigm, characterised by its “historicist, empirico-technicist, documentalist, empirico-patrimonialist” vision. This was a patrimonialist empiricism founded on the work of historiographers and the emotional, aesthetic, and economic value attached to ancient th or rare artifacts and documents. Arising in the mid-19 century, it developed within public institutions such as national libraries, archives, and museums, following the model of L’École Nationale des Chartes, created in 1821, and L’École du Louvre, of 1882. The paradigm is made manifest in the following ways: * The overvaluation of custodianship, conservation, and restoration of the support as the fundamental professional activity of librarians, archivists, and museologists. * The foregrounding of memory as the legitimising source of the modern Nation-State and the intellectual construction of the past on which it is founded. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 86 Documentary Sources of Museology: Reflections and Perspectives * The importance of access to the content of documents and objects through the development of research instruments like guides, inventories, and catalogues. * The formal and professional distinction of the archivist, librarian, and museologist, along with acceptance that they are cultural agents working with heritage who conserve, preserve, gather, order, classify, and disseminate documentation in a broad sense that also includes the objects of museum collections. Lacking a theoretical and methodological basis that would lay the groundwork for research, the practical training received at both academic and institutional organisations tended to overvalue custodianship, conservation, and support (da Silva, 2013, p. 27 ff). Nevertheless, according to the same author, we have now entered a second phase characterised by its post-custodianship, informational, and methodical dimension, which is associated with an evolutionary perspective that leans towards a “trans-disciplinary” information science. That results from the fusion of the practical disciplines of archival science, library science, documentation, and, a little later, museology. With the appearance of new technologies, information starts to be valued much more as a dynamic element in contrast with the tradition of documentary immobility. From that moment, the object of these disciplines becomes information considered as a phenomenon to be taken into account and a process to be developed. Their consideration as documentary sciences means they are called on to manage memory, produce more documentary information, and become mediators of information, communicating it to users. Such mediation takes place between the object-documents and individuals converted into potential users with the objective of facilitating communication between what the object represents and the subject who interprets it, so that the user can construct new knowledge once the information is gathered (DottaOrtega, 2013, p. 153). The museum as documentation centre Documentation can be regarded as one of the museum’s most important functions, to the point where the museum is viewed as a true documentation centre where information on cultural heritage is gathered, managed, and disseminated. The museum is the social space for the collection, conservation, recording, documenting, investigation, and diffusion of the collective memory of material and immaterial heritage, which has been gathered and transmitted by a community throughout its history, as a source of information and communication for current and future generations. At the same time, however, it is the place where society participates in the recreation of that memory. Consequently, we understand museum documentation as a set of very diverse documents in terms of supports, contents, origins, and cultural value. It is also a process consisting of various sequences of work involved in producing the different sets of documents or managing the museum. When an object enters the museum, it is deprived of the context in which it originally emerged, ceasing to be an ordinary object and so losing its protective condition, transforming itself into a document by becoming a product of human action. The museum object is then attributed with cultural, aesthetic, symbolic, and historic values that are destined to form part of museum collections in a manner susceptible to documentary treatment. When speaking of museology as a documentary source of memory, it is necessary to indicate ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Francisca Hernández Hernández 87 which hermeneutic methodology is to be followed in the process of analysing the relationship between objects or documents and the memory to which they give rise, for the results will differ greatly depending on the course we choose to follow. It has to be seen whether we should depart from the object-document to reach recognition of what it has signified for a particular community, or whether on the other hand we should halt at the object-document and limit our purpose solely to exhibiting it, making no reference to its significance. We shall obviously choose the first option, since it is on the basis of the object that we will be able to discover its own memory, avoiding the danger pointed out by De Meneses (1992, p. 106) of classifying objects into “a priori categories, univocal vacuums of documentary meaning that lead to the fragmentation of knowledge” by dividing it into historical, artistic, or symbolic objects, and giving to understand that the signifieds were generated by the objects themselves, not by society. Museological documentation is the result of a constant process of museological development that implies not only the compilation of every existing class of information but also the attempt to communicate knowledge. It aims to recover all the information about the object and, to this end uses the techniques and procedures of library science such as acquisition, registration, identification, numeration, indexing, and the gathering or recording of all the data that can contribute information about the object. However, it cannot content itself with being a mere database that can be consulted at any time but offers mere data without any content. Rather, it must be the place where it is possible to communicate a message about the reality contained by the objects and their contexts. The main function of museological documentation is to communicate how the relationship between human beings and their surrounding reality has occurred; in this way, we can clearly understand their systems of values, symbols, and signifieds as manifested in object-documents created all through the history of peoples. When objects enter the museum, they therefore become documents and, as Ivo Maroevic points out (1989, p. 34; 1994, p. 118), so the theoretical maturity of the museological discipline rests upon the recognition of the informative value of the object, and consequently of its status as document. Manifestly then, the author (1998, p. 163) readily relates museology to the information sciences, and does so while presenting museological objects or musealia from a heritage perspective. For their part, museum archives are concerned with conservation of the documentation the museum generates, such as correspondence, memoirs, reports, proceedings, personnel records, and accounts. We can therefore say that they are repositories of its historic memory, where we find its origin and development, its collections and activities, and everything related to its functioning, as an essential source for writing its history. To this we must add the museum library, considered as one more instrument for communication by means of the most appropriate techniques of the information and knowledge contained by the object-documents. All that the library acquires, organises, stores, and disseminates is found in books and documents, regardless of whether their support is paper, electronic, or magnetic. All its activity therefore has to be aimed at satisfying the users’ information needs, by offering them the information contained in the documents related to the museum’s objects. The current trend of today’s museums is to create their own centres for the simultaneous management of the archive, library, and ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 88 Documentary Sources of Museology: Reflections and Perspectives documentation, examples being the Prado and the Reina Sofía Art Centre in Madrid. The concept of document and cultural heritage applied to the areas of museology, library science and archival science We may wonder whether or not it is possible to apply the concepts of document and cultural heritage to the areas of museology, library science, and archival science. Some authors insist on leaving museology, museums, and displayed cultural properties outside the field of documentation. For instance, although Emilia Currás (1982, p. 26-27) accepts the application of the concept of document to museological objects, she keeps museology separate from the field of information sciences. Paul Otlet (1934, p. 216-217) initially adopted a functional view of the document to ask whether sculpture, museum objects, and live animals ought to be considered as documents; he eventually included the museum object inside the broader field of documentation, together with other inventions like the telegraph, radio, television and gramophone record, which he regarded as substitutes for the book. When it comes to studying and comprehending the physical and functional relation of the document, Otlet does not hesitate to resort to the methodical research of other disciplines like library science, archival science, museology, linguistics, sociology, logic, psychology, technology, and pedagogy. The fact that many authors theoretically accept the broad concept of the document does not mean that they approve of its application to three-dimensional objects. In methodological terms, they restrict documentary research and analysis to the written and, at most, twodimensional testimony. In any case, a distinction must be made between the specific document of each particular area and the sources of information they employ. According to Standard UNE-ISO 5127 (2010), museum documents are characterised by the “cultural and scientific interest they must possess in order to be permanently stored in readiness for exhibition.” The object-document is important in that it is the physical support that contains a series of pieces of information necessary for its understanding. It would not perform its true mission if it did not become a source of documentation and information, providing new knowledge that can be transmitted and updated in space and time. Such is the informative concept of the object-document, which can also be accompanied by a static and dynamic concept, according to López Yepes (1997, p. 16). Two attitudes can be adopted in the contemplation of one specific artwork, such as Velázquez’ The Surrender of Breda at the Museo del Prado. If we view it from an aesthetic perspective, we will enjoy its formal beauty, but if our perception acquires a documentary dimension, the picture also furnishes us with several pieces of information on the armour and uniforms worn by soldiers at that period; the museum will in this sense become a documentation centre. An object-document in a museum is valuable in that it provides us with a set of information, concepts, and ideas that must be studied for a better understanding of the message they are intended to transmit. The more we know about the relationship between the object and the human being who created it, the more committed we shall be to its conservation and transmission. The object goes from ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Francisca Hernández Hernández 89 being an isolated and decontextualised unit of data to becoming a full museological entity that demands active implication on the part of man to acquire a life of its own and transmit significance to the society that contemplates it. Every object, material or immaterial, natural or cultural, makes reference to a concrete reality that has occurred in history, and which offers us various series of information. Through them, we can learn how people thought in the past and confront their ideas with those of the present day. It is here that the museological context offered by the object can indicate what value systems, symbols, and signifieds were used in the relations established between societies and individuals, both among themselves and with nature. They even went so far as to transform, resulting in the creation of new objects that enrich the knowledge already acquired. As an object of knowledge, the museum object becomes a support for information through the possession of aesthetic value or historical testimony. It is thereby transformed into a representative symbol of a particular cultural manifestation, from which a good deal of information is to be drawn (CarriónGutiérrez, 1987). We must bear in mind that museological documentation is not intended to be anything but retrieval, as far as possible, of all the information held by the object-document, which will then be used to confirm its aesthetic, artistic and historic value when it enters the museum. At that point, the item becomes a fragmented object that offers us a partial view, not a global one, of the cultural production of society at a particular moment of history. This means that documentary action must go beyond the mere retrieval of information from the object itself to investigate the context of the cultural item’s production, a method conducive to the construction of knowledge about the historically produced cultural artifact, as asserted by Rosana Andrade do Nascimento (1994, p. 36). Once more, we repeat that the object-documents of the museum are supports for information that require conservation, since they contain all the information data necessary to gain an idea of what they signify and contribute to the history of humanity. Our remarks on the museological object draw attention to the close relations between museology and the information sciences. They can moreover be applied to the documents gathered through the library and archival sciences with a view to organising, storing, preserving, and exhibiting them for educational and cultural purposes. The function of the documentation sciences, like that of museology, is to provide the information that can be gleaned from the data possessed. The more information they retrieve, the greater their contribution of knowledge to society. For this reason, all these disciplines are dedicated to the retrieval of information in order to prevent its loss and allow it to be used as a documentary source. Nevertheless, what distinguishes museology from the other information science areas is that when it proceeds to gather certain objects, it does so on the basis of the idea that it is necessary to document the real and create a museum space for it. Anna Gregorová (1980, p. 20) affirms that museology “is a science studying the specific relation of man to reality, consisting in purposeful and systematic collecting and conservation of selected inanimate, material, mobile, and mainly three-dimensional objects documenting the development of nature and society and making a thorough scientific and cultural-educational use of them.” ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 90 Documentary Sources of Museology: Reflections and Perspectives For Stránský (1995, p. 38-40), “The object that is musealised cannot be considered a document in the sense employed by information science,” where the document is understood as a data resource that has been created intentionally and fixed on a support. Although this author argues that incorporating objects into the museum can possess certain characteristics of documentation, he sees an essential difference between the ontological focus of museology and the gnoseological focus of information science. He also admits that while information and documentation science can help museology, they are not in a position to solve its specific problems. The appropriation of reality does not consist merely of collecting or preserving but also of a ‘culture-generating process’. In the same way, Peter van Mensch (1992) follows Stránský in distancing himself from models originating in the information sciences and trying to analyse objects on the principle of the museum itself. The object as data carrier can only be understood through the analysis of all the moments that form its history. An object’s information value is the result of an historical process in which different phases may be distinguished: invention (cultural identity), realisation (factual identity), and use (actual identity). The researcher, historian, or ethnologist will concentrate on the analysis of factual identity, and this is another of the aspects differentiating museology from the information sciences. However, the relationship between Documentary Information Science and Museology can be said to have undergone a certain harmonisation, an assessment repeated in recent years by Johanna W. Smit (1999), Francisca Hernández Hernández (2002), Carlos Alberto Ávila Araújo (2011) and Armando Malhiero da Silva (2013). Both disciplines attach great importance to documentary processes, take the informative aspects of objects into account, and employ instruments that will allow them to be described with the aid of the new information technologies. Conclusions From an institutional and professional point of view, we observe that archival science, library science, documentation, and museology possess differences that individualise them, such as their documentary supports, the organisational methodologies they adopt, and their transmission of information. However, they also have the same object of study, one proper to the information and documentation sciences, which unites them and leads them to place the information they possess at the disposal of society. With the passage of time, these disciplines have undergone an historic, systematic, and social transformation that has closely interrelated them and made possible an open dialogue between them. They have thus gone from an emphasis on the objectdocument to a preferential focus on the information to be provided to users, even if, as Smit observes (1999, p. 3), there is still a certain dialectical tension between those who support the importance of the document (archivists and museologists) and those who accord priority to the information (documentalists and librarians) to be safeguarded and shared. When considered in its own right, every museum object-document represents and contains documentary information that makes the ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Francisca Hernández Hernández 91 task of museology possible within its field of study, and which is made accessible to users. That is why museological documentation is so important for the life of a museum. In the same way, the information sciences can bring a focus to other viewpoints and perspectives contained in documents, whose information could lead to new knowledge. The interrelationship between the disciplines counters any attempt to create unnecessary distancing through common grounding in the different information contents and in the way they are transmitted to society. These disciplines are ultimately in charge of managing the memory that has been stored and recorded over time, institutionalising information so as to satisfy society’s requirements. Here we have confirmation that all the elements defining the museum object-document are related to the internal dynamics of the documentary information sciences, with which they share the same object of study. On the other hand, further progress needs to be made on the consideration of museology as a discipline that goes beyond the mere communication of objects in trying to offer a vision of reality from the museum’s own experience. Only in this way can the museum experience acquire a true gnoseological and, above all, ontological significance that will distinguish it from other approaches. References Ávila Araújo, C. A. (2011).Arquivologia, Biblioteconomia e MuseologiaIntegradas na Ciència da Informaçâo: As Experièncias da UFMG, da UNB e da UFRGS.PontodeAcesso, Salvador, 5 (1), 85-108. Ávila Araújo, C. A. (2013). Integraçâo entre Arquivologia, Biblioteconomia eMuseologia como marco identitario para a Ciência da Informaçâo. In Rendón Rojas, M. A. (coord.). El objeto de estudio de la Bibliotecología/Documentación/Ciencia de la Información. Propuestas, discusión, análisis y elementos comunes. (pp. 235264). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Borges, J. L. (1998). Borges oral.Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Carrión Gutiérrez, M. (1987). Manual de Bibliotecas. Madrid: Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez. Pirámide. Currás, E. (1982). Las ciencias de la documentación: biblioteconomía, archivología y documentación e información. Barcelona: Mitre. da Silva, A. M. (2002). Archivistica, Biblioteconomia e Museologia do empirismo patrimonialista ao paradigma emergente da Ciência da Informaçâo. In 1º Congreso Internacional de Arquivos, Bibliotecas, Centros de Documentaçâo e Museus. (pp.573-607). Sâo Paulo: Impresa Oficial SP. da Silva, A. M. (2006). A informaçào: da compreensâo do fenómeno e construçâo do objecto científico. Porto:Ediçôes Afrontamento, CETAC,COM. da Silva, A. M. (2013). A Ciência da Informaçâo e a trasiçâo paradigmática. In Rendón Rojas, M.A. (coord.). El objeto de estudio de la bibliotecología/documentación/ciencia de la información. Propuestas, discusión, análisis y elementos comunes. (pp. 84-103), México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Davallon, J. (1997). L´état de la muséologie en France. Museology and Memory.ICOFOM Study Series, 28, 25-31. de Meneses, U. B. (1992). A exposiçâo museológica: reflexôes sobre pontoscríticos na práctica contemporánea. Ciências em Museus, 4, 103-120. do Nascimento, R. A. (1994). Documentaçâo Museológica e Comunicaçâo. Cadernos de Museologia, 3, 31-.39. Dotta Ortega, C. (2013). Ciência da informaçâo: do objetivo ao objeto. In Rendón Rojas, M. A. (coord.). El objeto de estudio de la Bibliotecología/Documentación/Ciencia de la Información. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 92 Documentary Sources of Museology: Reflections and Perspectives Propuestas, discusión, análisis y elementos comunes. (pp. 151177). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. García Marco, F. J. (2010). Las instituciones de la Memoria ante el cambio digital: Una propuesta sobre la articulación interdisciplinar de las Ciencias de la Documentación. Pliegos de Yuste, 11-12, 61-70. Gregorová, A. (1980). Museology -science or just practical museum work? Museological Working Papers (MuWoP), 1, 19-21. Hernández Hernández, F. (2002). Museología como ciencia de la Documentación. In López Yepes, J. L. (coord.). Manual de Ciencias de la Documentación. (pp. 159-178). Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide. Hernández Hernández, F. (2006). Planteamientos teóricos de la museología. Gijón: Trea. Herrera, J. D. (2009). La comprensión de lo social. Horizonte hermenéutico de las cienciassociales. Bogotá: CINDE. Homulos, P. (1990). Museums to libraries: a family of collecting institutions. Art Libraries Journal, 15 (1), 11-13. López de Prado, R. (2003). Bibliotecas de museos en España: características específicas y análisis DAFO. Revista General de Información y Documentación , 13 (1), 5-35. López Yepes, J. L. (1997). Reflexiones sobre el concepto de documento antela revolución de la información: ¿un nuevo profesional del documento? Scire, 3 (1), 11-29. Maroevic, I. (1989). The Museum Message between the Document and Information.In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.).Museum, Media, Message. (pp. 24-36). New York: Routledge. Maroevic, I. (1994). The Museum Object as a Document.ICOFOM StudySeries, 23, 113-119. Maroevic, I. (1998). Introduction to Museology: The European Approach. Munich: Verlag Christian Müller-Straten. NORMA ESPAÑOLA UNE-ISO 5127 (2010). Información y Documentación Vocabulario. Madrid: AENOR, Comité 50. Ortega, C. (2004). Relaçôes históricas entre Biblioteconomia, Documentaçâo en Ciência da Informaçâo. DataGramaZero. Revista de Ciência da Informaçâo, 5 (3), 1-16. Osuna Alarcón, Mª. R. (2011). Las fuentes de información. Las fuentes de información documentales-bibliográficas. In J. López Yepes &Mª R. Osuna Alarcón (coords.). Manual de Ciencias de al Información y Documentación. (pp. 243-258). Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide. Otlet, P. (1934). Traité de Documentation. Le livre sur le livre. Théorie et practique. Bruselas: Mundaneum. Quintero Castro, N. (2013). Disciplinas de la información documental: núcleo común y objeto de estudio.In Rendón Rojas, M.A. (coord.). El objeto deestudio de la Bibliotecología/Documentación/Ciencia de la Información. Propuestas, discusión, análisis y elementos comunes. (pp. 179-204). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Quintero Castro, N., Giraldo Lopera, M.E., Bernal Vinasco, I.C., Viana Arango, C., & Tabarda Ortiz, J. (2009). Identificación de las ciencias de la información documental. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, 32 (2), 195-229. Smit, J. W. (1999). Archivología, Biblioteconomía y Museología. Semejanzas y diferencias. Ciencias de la Información, Havana, 30 (3), 3-10. Stránský, Z.Z. (1995). Introduction à L´Étude de la Muséologie. Destinée aux étudiants de l´Ecole Internationale d´Été de Muséologie -EIEM. Brno: Université Marsaryk. van Mensch, P. (1992). Towards a methodology of museology.PhD thesis. Zagreb. Abstract Taking an epistemological theoretical approach as our starting point, we can think of museology as an intellectual exercise that helps us establish an open dialogue with other systems of thought, such as the social sciences or information and communication sciences, so that we can perceive reality in all its complexity. At this point, however, the question arises of whether or not museology shares the same objective as these disciplines. From our point of view, we believe museology to be a social science that encompasses the ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Francisca Hernández Hernández 93 museum object as a document that transmits information and knowledge about reality, and constitutes itself as a support for constructing collective memory. For this reason, museology cannot ignore those other subjects that deal with the documentation of memory. This leads us to ponder the role played by archival and library science within the field of museology. The answer can only be that these areas must be regarded as true documentary sources for museology. Why? Because they consider the museum objects as documents bearing information and knowledge. They also help to conceive the museum as a space and instrument for communication. This constitutes the theoretical basis for the work of the museum. Key words: Museology, Documentary Sources, Documentation Science, Information Science. Resumen Partiendo de un planteamiento teórico epistemológico, podemos pensar la museología como un ejercicio intelectual que nos ayude a entablar un diálogo abierto con otros sistemas de pensamiento como las ciencias sociales o las ciencias de la información y la comunicación, de manera que podamos percibir la realidad en toda su complejidad. Pero es aquí donde se nos plantea la cuestión de si la museología comparte o no el mismo objeto que estas ciencias. Desde nuestro punto de vista, pensamos que la museología es una ciencia social que comprende el objeto museal como un documento que transmite información y conocimiento sobre la realidad y se constituye en soporte para construir la memoria colectiva. Por esa razón, la museología no puede desentenderse de aquellas otras ciencias que tratan sobre la documentación de la memoria. Esto nos lleva a preguntarnos sobre el papel que la archivística y la biblioteconomía desempeñan dentro del campo de la museología. Y la respuesta no puede ser otra que éstas deben considerarse como auténticas fuentes documentales de la museología. ¿Por qué? Porque consideran los objetos del museo como documentos que son portadores de información y de conocimiento. Y, además, contribuyen a concebir el museo como un espacio e instrumento de comunicación. Todo ello constituye la base teórica que fundamenta el trabajo del museo. Palabras clave: Museología, Fuentes Documentales, Ciencias de la Documentación, Ciencias de la Información. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Museology and its constituent dialogues: inside and outside the boundaries Luciana Menezes de Carvalho6 Graduate Program in Museology and Heritage (PPG-PMUS, UNIRIO/MAST) - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Federal University of Alfenas (UNIFAL-MG) – Brazil Tereza Cristina Moletta Scheiner7 Graduate Program in Museology and Heritage (PPG-PMUS, UNIRIO/MAST) - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Preliminary thoughts Science practitioners of the 17 and 18 centuries started to divide knowledge into niches to understand the aspects of the world that still had to be known. The classification of knowledge, started in the th 18 century, influenced those knowledge branches that already existed. This work was initially developed, memorably, by Diderot and D’Alembert, who used a “knowledge tree” graphic to divide knowledge into three parts related to human understanding: “memory (including the history and the natural history), reason (philosophy, mathematic and law) and imagination (the arts)” (Burke, 2012, p. 73). th th The expression “science practitioners” was used to refer to the 17 th and 18 centuries because the term “scientist” was only created in 1830. These were scholars of the natural and social world, although they were distinguished from previous scholars; they gradually changed their practices into professions and organized themselves as a community – the science community. Therefore it is possible to infer that each discipline creates its own world – or reality – based on how this kind of knowledge is noticed as a collectivity; this collectivity, by the way, can be the West (macro) or a specific knowledge area (micro). th Interdisciplinary debates on Museology are as old as the first debates about Museology itself. Thus, the discussion about the nature and objective of Museology has always been permeated by interfaces with other fields. According to the paper presented at the 2014 ICOFOM meeting, Museology exists as a claim on the part of museum professionals for recognition of their distinctive knowledge and objective, resulting from a systematic, disciplined, and academic process, as provided and encouraged by museum courses. The arising question is: why has Museology been configured as interdisciplinary since its beginning? To answer this question, the following trajectory is proposed: 1) Reflection about the concepts of field, discipline, and interdisciplinarity using Pierre Bourdieu for a Master and PhD student in Museology and Heritage at the Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro – UNIRIO.Museologist and Director at the Museum of Memory and Heritage of the Federal University of Alfenas – UNIFAL-MG, Minas Gerais, Brazil. 7 PhD in Communication and Culture (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro – UFRJ). Professor and Coordinator of the Graduate Program in Museology and Heritage (PPGPMUS, Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro - UNIRIO/ Museum of Astronomy and Related Sciences - MAST), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 6 96 Museology and its constituent dialogues: inside and outside the boundaries theoretical framework; 2) brief notes about the first relevant debates related to interdisciplinarity in Museology; and 3) a case study analysis of the Graduate Program in Museology and Heritage and its interdisciplinary dialogues. The final considerations intend to point out the importance of Museology professionals, not only in shaping the boundaries but also in building interdisciplinary dialogues. Microphysics8 of the fields: Bourdieu and his methodological contributions to the social universe analysis. The systematic field case According to Bourdieu, a field can be defined as a social universe, as well as a range of forces and disputes that is dialectically articulated to preserve and change itself; a “social space of objective relationships” (Bourdieu, 2012, p. 64) between distinct groups, a field possesses its own reality as a symbolic system. In other words, it is a relatively autonomous microcosm that obeys its own laws. While a field responds to a macrocosm (e.g. society) and its laws, it also affords autonomy; this autonomy resides exactly at the interface: the microcosm (field) takes advantage of the same mechanisms of its own society to free itself from external impositions and create conditions where it can only recognize its own internal impositions (Bourdieu, 2003, pp. 20-21). These impositions can be called capital: each field is a place for constituting a specific form of capital (Bourdieu, 2003, p. 26). The efficacy of a symbolic field resides in its capacity to reproduce the natural and social world, sorting this world by means of representations and senses that are allegories of the real structures of social relationships. Considering this premise, the more autonomous a certain field is, the more it reflects social impositions, changing them in such a way that they might be unknowable – that is, these impositions might seem to belong only to this given field. Furthermore, the field autonomy gives its agents a specific authority that allows them to go beyond the field boundaries, and then to speak about the field with authority and efficacy (Bourdieu, 2003). The concept of capital, known in economics and common sense as a set of material properties, is different within cultural fields (in a more intelligible way than in economics): capital is symbolic (and incorporated), but also represents a power acting upon the field; capital also can be accumulated – considering the fact that each field possesses particular types of capital. Forms of capital are not just defined in each field, they are organized, institutionalized and mainly recognized by those in the field. The symbolic capital only exists by means of the agents’ acknowledgement, endowed with perception categories of the field in which they participate (Bourdieu, 2012). Science can be defined as a power field . It is not the only one; every society is constituted by a set of fields, claimed by Bourdieu as “spaces of position” ordered in a hierarchical way according to established rules of these fields, on which every field is subordinated to the same segmentation and “polarizing logic” (2013, p. 18). What is at stake in the scientific field is to obtain the scientific competence or the scientific capital monopoly, i.e., the capacity or power to act 9 It refers to Michel Foucault’s book “Microphysics of Power”. This is Ione Valle’s affirmation at the book presentation of Pierre Bourdieu, Homo Academicus. As stated by Bourdieu, the university field is entered in the power field and in the social field (2013, p. 65). 8 9 ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Luciana Menezes de Carvalho, Tereza Cristina Moletta Scheiner 97 with authority and be authorized, in a legitimate and recognized way, by its participants (Bourdieu, 2012, p. 1). The scientific field structure can be defined by means of struggle between the leaders, and they can be agents or institutions that dispute the distribution structure of a symbolical capital. Bourdieu pointed to the Copernican revolution (in the sense given by Kuhn) as a demand for autonomy of a specific field that desired to be “scientific”; this autonomy would be from the religious, philosophical and political fields. It was a demand that resulted in “the affirmation of the scientists’ right to decide scientific issues” (2012, p. 21). The belief in knowledge that distinguishes itself from others, independent of social claims, is also the result of an arbitrary movement that exposes the science itself. The main goal of “struggle” or dispute in a scientific field, beyond positions and classifications, is the monopoly of recognition that a certain point of view is legitimate, not considering that each one is “particular, located and dated” (Bourdieu, 2013, p. 51). Museums played a fundamental role in the diffusion of a specific way of thinking that is actually hegemonic: the scientific way. Being an institution or phenomenon, the museum entity also participated in the consolidation of the scientific field. As an unquestionable source and reference (the museum discourse is rarely put to the test), museums served as a diffusion center and legitimizer of knowledge. The disciplines and (inter)disciplines cycle Specialization within the sciences may have allowed human beings to know more than they had already, offering niche variety to many different scholars (Burke, 2012, p. 203). Consequently, specialization took part in a division of labor process, considering Adam Smith, Ferguson and even Marxian perspectives. However, it is necessary to consider that, in general, it was not a spontaneous and nonintentional process (Burke, 2012, pp. 206-208). Burke points out the th fact that the 19 century was permeated with the appearance of numerous groups – “the age of associations,” reports Karl Preusker – which had an important role in the creation of new disciplines; many of these associations started with the aim of creating a new discipline (2012, p. 208). International meetings and congresses, including their publications, also assumed important roles in shaping the identity of disciplines, even through conflicts between participants. The main highlight of this process was the foundation of many subjects and an institutional “explosion” in universities during the th second half of the 19 century; these universities, known as educational institutions, broadened out to become research centers while the disciplines became independent (Burke, 2012, p. 212). Therefore this is a recent process, although usually seen as timeless by their members; in fact, this fragmentation of scientific knowledge as we know it nowadays started only a few centuries ago. As claimed by Burke, the disciplines are historical artifacts that were gradually built, in a certain time and space, to answer challenges and problems (2012, pp. 212-213). It is possible to forecast a trajectory (not universal but common) of a discipline: from a society to a journal; and then from a chair in a faculty to a seminar; and finally from a department or institute where it belonged before becoming independent, even sometimes by strong ruptures. The pioneers in this process were the United States and Germany (Burke, 2012, pp. 212-213). ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 98 Museology and its constituent dialogues: inside and outside the boundaries In some cases, there are disciplines that started by means of a personal effort by scholars such as Humboldt (Geography), Linnaeus (Botanic), Adam Smith (Economy), Durkheim and Weber (Sociology). By contrast, some theoreticians criticize this perspective; Foucault said that no one creates disciplines (Burke, 2012, p. 216). It is important to stress that some of these agents and others had important roles in the defense and institutionalization of their future disciplines in the corresponding universities. It is said “future” because these disciplines did not exist before their actions – if they are “founding fathers”, so, by definition, they could not belong to the disciplines that they were creating (Burke, 2012, p. 217). Thus according to Burke, based on Hagstrom, the new disciplines were heterogeneous by themselves because their antecedents had distinct origins - this fluidity is a particular characteristic of this first moment. When a second generation comes (those who graduated from this discipline), they take the existence of the discipline as a consolidated fact (2012, pp. 217-218). Bourdieu (2013, p. 153) considered an academic discipline to be a subfield within the university fields (as well as Languages, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences, among others); it is important to emphasize something that is already known but barely said: every discipline that has claimed itself to be a "science" is a human creation - that means it is not natural. Science is constituted of its own members struggling for monopoly, as well as its own "di-vision"; it is a viewpoint achieving sense and consensus and consequently producing discontinuity. In other words, the creation of a discipline is a result of the wish to acquire authority (Bourdieu, 2012, p. 113). The boundaries are just results of a division more or less close to the “reality”. In reality, which is not natural either, it is an outcome of a “legitimate delimitation” (Bourdieu, 2012, p. 115). Science itself – by means of its agents – invokes its authority to found the arbitrary division that it wants to impose. The power said to be ‘scientific’ brings or makes possible the existence of a group and a space with a specific vision and division – a vision of a specific identity and unity (Bourdieu, 2012, pp. 116-117). Interdisciplinarity arose as a movement against specialization. According to Burke, it is not a new movement if we consider the way that knowledge used to be categorized. However, it is only possible to think of interdisciplinarity as we know it today, after the emerging concept of disciplines. The need for interdisciplinarity arose to fill the gaps in disciplinarity itself, which did not allow broader approaches and relationships between knowledge fields (Burke, 2012, pp. 223224). This movement also started as more or less organized and in the same way as the disciplines, by means of societies, publications, th and institutions. At the time (essentially the second half of the 20 century with some earlier traces) the organization of certain studies were proposed, such as Middle Eastern Studies, Near Eastern Studies, among others. In the specific case of the United States, these studies were promoted by political efforts in order to stimulate teamwork (Burke, 2012, pp. 224-225). The museum became an exclusive subject appropriated by the discipline of Museology from the moment that this cultural capital rendered it “a distinct gain” (Bourdieu, 2013, p. 214). Claiming to be a “specialized field”, Museology organized itself with the same logic as any area: “as the specific capital amount possessed and as its antiquity” (Bourdieu, 2013, p. 217). In an ongoing search for the ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Luciana Menezes de Carvalho, Tereza Cristina Moletta Scheiner 99 monopoly and such points of view, a question that has always arisen is the very definition of the discipline, in which such points of view have a place – therefore each person will use a definition that is closer to his or her interests. However, the “great turn” that changed the museum field’s pathway th occurred in the 20 century. After the creation of ICOM, a group of professionals from different countries met to debate museums in a distinct way from other discussions about museums in Anthropology, Social Sciences and other human disciplines, by means of their personal and even academic experiences. For some theorists, museum practices are not just the subject of study, but the museum in itself, its existence, meaning, and – mainly – the possibility of a specific systematic discipline for museums. Constituent dialogues of Museology – ICOFOM and its importance as a centralizing agent and diffuser of a new discipline Considering ICOFOM as an important agent in the process of shaping Museology and its boundaries is no coincidence. This committee arose exactly when ideas and theories about Museology or Museum Studies were being developed throughout the world, and they converged in this space. In the second ICOFOM meeting held in Poland in 1978, an Editorial Board was established, composed of G. Dieszner, W. Klausewitz, A. Razgon and Vinos Sofka - whose task would be to work on paper selections based on “fundamental museological problems” (Jelínek, 1980, p. 57). In the following year, during the 1979 ICOFOM meeting held in Torgiano, Italy, the creation of a debates journal by assembly was approved, initially called Working Papers. In the first volume of MuWoP – Museological Working Papers – Vinos Sofka presented it as a birth: “A new arrival is announced in the international museum community. Nickname: MuWoP. Size: 67 pages. Weight: 203 g” (1980, p. 3). The purpose of MuWoP was to provide an open forum for Museology's fundamental questions, in which such discussion would occur in the form of themes according to a defined program that could be changed by the ICOFOM community. Another reason would be to become a forum for the development of a specific museological terminology. MuWoP nº. 2: interdisciplinarity in Museology In addition to discussing questions about a definition of Museology, its subject of study, and terminology, there was a concern by ICOFOM members regarding the potential interdisciplinary nature of Museology. Interdisciplinarity was the theme of the second volume of MuWoP, with the contributions of each author presented here. According to Vinos Sofka, the MuWoP authors could be divided into two groups: those who defined Museology as a discipline, an emerging social science; and those who emphasized its practical aspect – it would be simultaneously an art or an applied science. Considering that, the authors of the second volume directed their inferences about the limits and boundaries of Museology and how much is interdisciplinary or not. In the Czech Josef Benes’ perspective, the museum domain was a cultural specialty (1981, p. 10-12); the American Flora S. Kaplan considered Museology as a social science (1981, pp. 14-15); Zybnek ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 100 Museology and its constituent dialogues: inside and outside the boundaries Z. Stránský claimed that a science specialist or theorist would not be able to answer the question of Museology being a science or not due to the lack of personal experience and contact with museums’ reality and practice. Therefore, Stránský considers the experience with the museum phenomenon as an important fact in Museology analysis (1981, pp. 19-21); the Polish Jerzy Swiecimski enunciated that the museum’s problems could be seen by means of scientific-analytical approaches, i.e., the practical understanding of museums in the light of individual systematic aspects – history of culture, specific branches of philosophy, art theory, and others (1981, pp. 22-24). The American G. Ellis Burcaw started his paper explaining the difference between “multi” and “inter” – “multi” means more than one and “inter” is between or among. He pointed that the “Museology science” has basically worked in connection with other sciences, on the basis of the multi and interdisciplinarity (1981, pp. 29-30). In a more pragmatic perspective, the Israeli Michaela Dub ensured that for each kind of museum a set of specific knowledge areas are necessary; as an example of interdisciplinarity in museums, she mentioned the exhibition process that in turn requires action of various professionals from different knowledge areas (1981, pp. 3031). Museology is an interdisciplinary approach, as pointed out by the Czech Anna Gregorová, both in a practical museum viewpoint and for Museology itself: 1) considering the fact that museum activities are conducted and influenced by a large variety of scientific, social and natural disciplines; and 2) Museology, studying the specific relation of man to reality, can be related to other analytical disciplines such as: Ontology, Gnosiology, Psychology, Axiology, Ethics, Pedagogy and Sociology (1981, pp. 33-36). The German Ilse Jahn emphasized that, if there is an interdisciplinarity, it presumes the existence of a discipline “museology” (a “real science”) and of a specific museological knowledge. The interdisciplinarity would work as a knowledge exchange to resolve problems that cannot be solved with a specific knowledge (1981, pp. 37-38). Therefore, the interdisciplinary relationship in Museology should be firstly examined through Museology’s nature itself, as maintained by the American Flora S. Kaplan, but it could be found in the practical museum, in which “each museum professional partakes of the interdisciplinary nature of museology” (1981, p. 40). The Canadian Louis Lemieux worked with the concept of discipline as a study field, but he considered that, if a professional practice (Medicine, for example) requires knowledge from other disciplines, such a profession is multidisciplinary; and when a variety of disciplines interact in the pursuit of a common objective, this action is interdisciplinary. In the museum universe, the exhibition was used again as a good example of interdisciplinary activity (1981, pp. 4142). The Catalans Domènec Miquel i Serra and Eulàlia Morral i Romeu highlighted the pluridisciplinary concept – the coexistence of distinct disciplines leading to interdisciplinarity, as two dimensions that are complementary; they used the Catalonian museums as a study case (1981, pp. 44-45). In this range, the Czech Jirí Neustupný declared that museum work and Museology’s character are heterogeneous (1981, p. 46), in which Museology has applied the theories and methods of other disciplines to museum work. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Luciana Menezes de Carvalho, Tereza Cristina Moletta Scheiner 101 The American Robert W. Ott pointed to the importance of interdisciplinarity in the context of art museum exhibitions – in order to understand interdisciplinarity in museums, a basic enlightenment of “the various philosophies of interpretation and criticism in arts” (1981, p. 48) is necessary: mechanistic criticism, contextualistic criticism, organistic criticism, formalistic criticism, and an integration of these viewpoints. As pointed out by the Russian Awraam M. Razgon, “Any effort to interpret Museology as a scientific discipline inevitably brings up the necessity of determining the nature of museological research” (1981, pp. 51-53); the French Georges Henri Rivière approached the dynamic of the role of interdisciplinarity in the museum institution (1981, pp. 54-55); and the Brazilian Waldisa Rússio Guarnieri maintained that interdisciplinarity should be a research method in Museology, in museum work, and in Museology training courses for museum professionals (1981, pp. 56-57). The German Klaus Schreiner asserted that “every scientific discipline examines a certain field of reality and its specific laws”, and that Museology examines the complex process of the acquisition, the conservation, the identification and recording, the research, the exhibition and communication of selected movable original, authentic objects of nature and society. (1981, p. 58). Even with its specialization, every field of activity of a discipline includes a connection and reciprocal effects of different fields of knowledge (1981, p. 58). Yugoslav Tibor Sekelj also mentioned, as an example, exhibition work as an interdisciplinary cooperation in museums (1981, pp. 60-61). The debate about interdisciplinarity in Museology arose in connection with the debates about the basic character of Museology, as proposed by the Polish Jerzy Swiecimski. Therefore, we start right from this point of view. Although the MuWoP discussion comes from the 1980s, we approach it here in this paper for the following reasons: 1) We consider the period of 1950 to 1980 of prime importance in understanding the Museology formation process; and 2) a worldwide forum was established to discuss interdisciplinarity as an emerging discipline. As we said before, it is only possible to talk about interdisciplinarity on the basis of the existence of disciplines and, in this case, of a specific discipline. Although most contributions mentioned above are based on practical museum work, the authors tried to justify an already existing interdisciplinarity in Museology. Indeed, this is possible to infer not because of interdisciplinarity involving museums’ practical work, but because of the epistemic moment when Museology configured itself as a discipline. Museology made room as a systematic discipline in th the Academy in the second part of the 20 century, when its supporters aspired to a study objective that permeated museums with distinct perspectives. It all happened simultaneously in the moment when the theme of interdisciplinarity was in vogue. Those first authors who reflected about Museology did not belong, obviously, to the discipline, as it was not a proper discipline at the time; in order to consolidate its existence as a subject, they brought along methods, theories, and investigative techniques from their consolidated original areas. Now they claimed for Museology the status of an interdisciplinary subject to justify their existence within this emerging area and to validate their thoughts. Finally, if Museology were not interdisciplinary, a thought, method, or theory ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 102 Museology and its constituent dialogues: inside and outside the boundaries based on Philosophy, Communication, or Arts, for example, would not have a reason to exist inside that discipline. PPG-PMUS and its interdisciplinary dialogues 10 According to Capes , the core of a graduate program is research, 11 performed exclusively by students through dedicated study . Their results contribute directly to the amount of knowledge produced in a certain field and, in addition, consolidate it together with their master’s and doctoral studies. An area offering graduate courses can be seen as an discipline holding a consolidated production of knowledge, validated and recognized both internally and externally. The Graduate Program in Museology and Heritage (PPG-PMUS) is the result of a partnership between the Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO) and the Museum of Astronomy and Related Sciences (MAST). This is the first Museology graduate program in Brazil, offering a Master’s program since 2006 and a PhD program from 2010. It is not necessary for a candidate to have a degree in Museology in order to start a Master’s or Doctoral degree in this program, indeed the student can have graduated from any field of study and be enrolled in the program. The teaching staff is composed of professors from the following areas: Museology, Arts, Information Science, Social Sciences, Communication, Education, Engineering, Geology, History, History of Science, and Linguistics. The basic subjects of this course are “Theory and Methodology in Museology” and “Heritage Theory”, being of equal importance in the discipline of “Museology, Heritage, Documentation and Information”. However, the program offers students a range of topics, such as: “Museology and Conservation”, “Museology and Communication”, “Museology, Heritage and Sustainable Development”, “Culture and Society: symbolic itineraries”, “Heritage, Nature and Biodiversity”, “Heritage, Museology, Education and Interpretation”, “Museology and Art”, “Museum: Theory and Practice”, besides the study seminars and those matters related to dissertations and thesis development. Nevertheless, the most interesting indicators of how diversified PPGPMUS is are its research lines. The two areas, named “Museum and Museology” and “Museum, Total Heritage and Development”, include research projects discussing a large variety of themes, such as the terms and concepts of Museology; exhibition languages; memory of Museology; “Education as a Cultural and Personal Heritage”, imagined communities, inventory of geodiversity valorization, among 12 other specific and distinct themes . It is along these lines that dissertations and theses are developed – so it is possible to visualize the diversity of investigations and results (dissertations and theses) already existing in Brazilian Museology. If the existence of an undergraduate course is a fundamental part of shaping a new discipline, a graduate program ensures a methodological status to this discipline. The Museology Program CAPES (the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) is the Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education. It is a foundation of the Ministry of Education (MEC), and it establishes guidelines for the Graduation courses strictu sensu (Master and Doctorate) across the whole country. CAPES – Historia e Missão. (2015, August 29). Available at < http://www.capes.gov.br/historia-e-missao >. 11 This perspective can be found in the Plano Nacional de Pós-Graduação (National Graduate Program) 2011-2020. 12 The information presented here can be found at PPG-PMUS site. PPG-PMUS homepage.(2015, August 29). Available at: < http://ppg-pmus.mast.br/inicio.htm >. 10 ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Luciana Menezes de Carvalho, Tereza Cristina Moletta Scheiner 103 (PPG-PMUS) approaches a large variety of subjects, making it heterogeneous and even interdisciplinary. The investigations carried out in this program extrapolate Museology boundaries – boundaries that for some are already defined, but are still undefined for others. An important addendum: those seeking a closer approach to Museology, especially because of the undergraduate course in Museology, usually defend the idea that Museology has limits and a defined object of study; for others, from other subject areas, Museology has not only undefined boundaries but also wide boundaries, as it allows their points of view to be included within the discipline. Final Remarks Foucault (2007) pointed out the end of the human being as an object of study. It is possible to figure the end of science as an entity whose knowledge is the only legitimate one. The whole process of knowledge production is permeated with the relativity of knowledge and human perception. Therefore what we can see are systems created by groups seeking to legitimize their own specialties using the symbolic capitals of science and other analytical subjects, trying to conceal the arbitrary as much as they can (Bourdieu, 2007, p. 164). The human is an invention of the human being itself, as stated by Foucault, but this one also invents something besides himself/herself – in Kant's opinion, through the construction of a world it is possible to know the real world. However, more than the attempt to know the real world, humans have created distinct worlds through the process of systematizing knowledge, using his/her way of thinking based on his/her society. Science is a created world that, despite the fallacy that it can understand what can be named as the real world, it has conquered for itself through the time autonomy from this fallacy and today the science already exists in itself. In the same way, that process also happens with disciplines: they start from an attempt to understand a certain object, and the more they become autonomous, the further they stand from their objects because their existence is no longer conditioned to have an object and to support them. At long last, their agents are many and have distinct perspectives when disagreeing to legitimize their viewpoints, all with claims to obtain the exact answer about the discipline’s objective; knowingly or not they take part in a movement that has yet to reach a verdict. Maybe the existence of a verdict about such an object will make the act of seeking obsolete, and along with it the science and its discipline; however in contradiction, the seeking is also its motor, driving the field. It is important to mention that no discipline is interdisciplinary in itself – what is interdisciplinary are the agents or members. Nevertheless, after discussing a field as a social construct, no knowledge is solely disciplinary. The discipline is an artificial distinction of the overall knowledge, which in turn is a speech or a way of seeing the world; interdisciplinarity can also be a justification of the peculiar characteristics given to Museology. It is also important to consider that “what is at stake in the internal struggle by the scientific authority in the science socials field, that is, the power to produce, impose and instill the legitimate representation of the social world, it is what is at stake between the classes in the ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 104 Museology and its constituent dialogues: inside and outside the boundaries political field” (Bourdieu, 1976, p. 27). Museology or Museum Studies th started its first steps in the beginning of the 20 century. The first one was created in the United States in the 1900s; Museum courses, afterward denominated as Museology, were created after the 1920s in countries like France and Brazil. However it is possible to disguise two trajectories, both considering the interdisciplinarity phenomenon, as these currents started to consolidate around the world in the th second half of the 20 century, in distinctive ways: 1) a perspective through which museum studies is configured using approaches from different disciplines, with the purpose of improving practices in the museum universe; and 2) a slope which claims the existence of a specific subject for analysis and systematic study, even though methodological approaches or theoretical bases from other disciplines are necessary – for such a slope, the name Museology is more appropriate. References Bourdieu, P. (1976). O Campo Científico. (2012, October 24). Retrieved from http://uaiinformatica.net/luciana/campo_cientifico_bourdieu.pdf. Bourdieu, P. (2003). Os usos sociais da ciência.Por uma sociologia clínica do campo científico. Tradução: Denise Barbara Cartani. São Paulo: UNESP. Bourdieu, P. (2012). O Poder Simbólico. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil. Bourdieu, P. (2013). A Economia das Trocas Simbólicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva. Burke, P. (2012). Uma história social do conhecimento. Da Enciclopédia à Wikipédia. Trad. Denise Bottmann, vol. 2. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor. CAPES – Historia e Missão. (2015, August 29). Retrieved from http://www.capes.gov.br/historia-e-missao. Desvallées, A.,& Mairesse, F. (Eds.). (2010). Conceptos claves de Museología. Paris: Armand Colin. Foucault, M. (2007).As Palavras e as Coisas. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. ICOFOM.(1981). Museological Working Papers, 2. PPG-PMUS homepage. (2015, August 29). Retrieved from http://ppgpmus.mast.br/inicio.htm. Abstract The debate on interdisciplinarity in Museology is as old as the debate about the museological field itself. In fact, the discussion about the nature and object of the Museology field has always been permeated by interfaces with other fields. As we asserted in the 2014 ICOFOM meeting, Museology exists as a claim for recognition of museum professionals for our specific knowledge and objectives. It is the result of a process that is willing to be systematic, disciplined and academic, fostered and formed by the museum’s major programs. Therefore, the question is: Why has Museology set itself as an interdisciplinary field since its beginning? In order to answer this question, we propose the following topics: 1) Reflection on the concept of discipline and interdisciplinarity using Pierre Bourdieu and Peter Burke for the theoretical framework; 2) Brief considerations of the first discussions related to interdisciplinarity in Museology; 3) Case study analysis: the graduate program in Museology and Heritage of Rio de Janeiro and its interdisciplinary dialogues. The final consideration points out the importance of museum professionals in the museological field, not only in the configuration of its boundaries, but also in the construction of its own interdisciplinary dialogues. Keywords: museology, interdisciplinarity, Bourdieu ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Luciana Menezes de Carvalho, Tereza Cristina Moletta Scheiner Resumen 105 Más allá y hacia adentro de fronteras en construcción: diálogos constituyentes de la Museologí El debate sobre la interdisciplinariedad en la Museología es tan antiguo como las primeras discusiones alrededor del propio campo museológico. Con efecto, las discusiones sobre la naturaleza y el objeto del campo de la Museología siempre han sido permeadas de interfaces con otros campos. Como hemos afirmado en el encuentro del ICOFOM de 2014, la Museología existe como reivindicación de profesionales de museos por una especificidad de conocimiento y objeto, y es resultado de un proceso que se desea científico, disciplinario y académico, propiciado y fomentado por los cursos de museos. La cuestión que se presenta es: ¿por qué la Museología ya se configura, desde sus primordios, como interdisciplinaria? Para responder a esa cuestión, se propone la siguiente trayectoria: 1) reflexión sobre el concepto de disciplina e interdisciplinariedad, utilizando como referencial teórico a Pierre Bourdieu y Peter Burke; 2) breves apuntamientos sobre las primeras discusiones relevantes relacionadas a la interdisciplinariedad en la Museología; 3) análisis de un estudio de caso: el Programa de Posgrado en Museología y Patrimonio de Río de Janeiro y sus diálogos interdisciplinarios. Las consideraciones finales apuntan para la importancia de los actores en el campo museológico, no sólo en la configuración de las fronteras, sino también en la construcción de los propios diálogos interdisciplinarios. Palabras clave: Museología,interdisciplinariedad, Bourdieu ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Pour une approche énactive de la muséologie Daniel Schmitt Université Lille Nord de France ; UVHC, DeVisu – Valenciennes, France Comme l’ont bien montré André Desvallées et François Mairesse (2005), la muséologie est un champ de recherche très hétérogène. L’une des dernières acceptions définit la muséologie comme une « relation spécifique entre l’homme et la réalité caractérisée comme documentation du réel par l’appréhension sensible directe » (Mairesse & Desvallées, 2005, p. 131). Bernard Schiele, en citant Jorge Wagensberg (2006), précise que cette relation spécifique entre l’homme et la réalité réside dans le fait qu’un « musée, quel qu’il soit, cherche d’abord à comprendre et faire comprendre la réalité ». Pour arriver à faire comprendre la réalité, le musée « utilise des fragments de cette réalité dans des situations de communication conçues à l’intention de ses visiteurs. […] réalité et communication sur la réalité vont donc de pair au musée. Elles en sont les deux piliers. » Schieleen déduit que l’objectif de la formation en muséologie est de « permettre d’appréhender […] ce qu’il y a d’essentiel et de structurant dans le musée : l’opérativité de la relation nouée entre les visiteurs et les vraies choses » (Schiele, 2012, p. 96). À titre d’hypothèse et pour la suite de la discussion, nous retenons la proposition suivante : la muséologie étudie une relation spécifique entre l’homme et la réalité caractérisée comme documentation du réel par l’appréhension sensible directe. Cette relation opérative s’appuie sur des fragments de la réalité, des vraies choses, dans des situations communicationnelles conçues à l’intention des visiteurs. Cela nous oblige à faire un détour par les concepts de réel, de réalité et de vrai. Un détour préliminaire par la question du réel, de la réalité et du vrai La relation au monde en général et à celui du musée en particulier s’appuie sur un ensemble de perceptions qui relèvent à la fois du corps et de l’esprit comme structure biologique et comme trajectoire historique. Ce que nous nommons la réalité, le monde que nous percevons avec ses formes, ses couleurs, ses textures, ses odeurs, ses sons, provient d’expériences vécues à partir des interactions récurrentes que nous entretenons avec le réel. Cette approche kantienne est loin d’être nouvelle et elle a probablement été de tout temps au cœur des préoccupations humaines. La théorie de l’énaction proposée par Francisco Varela (1989) a formellement montré qu’il n’existait pas de relation univoque entre le réel et notre représentation du réel, ce que nous nommons la réalité. Cette théorie prouve, au contraire, que la réalité telle que nous la percevons s’appuie certes sur des fragments du réel, mais qu’elle est surtout rendue possible par les diverses actions que nous accomplissons dans le monde. Nos actions construisent nos perceptions et notre cognition, qui guident en retour nos actions et stabilisent et renforcent ainsi des schèmes de perceptions-actions. (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1993, p. 35). La boucle récursive d’une 108 Pour une approche énactive de la muséologie action s’appuie sur le réel, passe par la cognition et le corps agissant et percevant, construit une réalité et crée du sens tout en guidant l’action. Cette boucle est au cœur de la théorie de l’énaction. Dans une perspective énactive, on dit plus simplement que la cognition est une propriété émergente du couplage acteur-environnement à partir de la structure biologique et de l’histoire de l’acteur. Par exemple, la couleur rouge que nous percevons et qui semble bien exister là-bas, au-dehors de nous, est dans une large mesure indépendante de la longueur d’onde émise. Je perçois du rouge làbas, non pas parce que je peux saisir les caractéristiques intrinsèques de l’environnement comme une longueur d’onde, mais parce qu’il se trouve que des perturbations possibles et récurrentes au sein de ma structure biologique, de mon histoire et de mon système neuronal me font vivre une expérience que nous qualifions de rouge dans l’espace intersubjectif du langage : en fait, « il n’y a aucun moyen d’établir une correspondance entre la grande stabilité de la couleur des objets que nous voyons et la lumière qui en provient » (Maturana & Varela, 1994, p. 8). D’autres auteurs partagent aujourd’hui le même constat. Le linguiste Didier Bottineau (2011, p. 212) le dit de façon radicale : la réalité en elle-même n’est pas connaissable, il s’agit d’un X-monde. La physicienne Mioara Mugur-Schächter (2006, p. 145) conclut de même : « Il apparaît au grand jour que la tendance limitative à percevoir ce qui est, tel que c’est, à découvrir, à contempler, est fondée sur des illusions cognitives ». Nous n’avons aucune possibilité de connaître le réel en lui-même. Nous pouvons néanmoins connaître et partager des réalités vraies La connaissance n’est connaissance que si elle permet une expérience stable, « quelque chose que l’organisme construit dans le but de créer de l’ordre dans un flux d’expérience – en tant que tel, informe – en établissant des expériences renouvelables, ainsi que des relations relativement fiables entre elles » (von Glasersfeld, 1988, p. 41). Et, bien que nous ne puissions pas connaître l’essence du réel, nous connaissons le monde et les choses à travers des interactions stables et récurrentes. Le réel se manifeste à travers l’expérience du réel pour constituer notre réalité, notre monde propre. Prononcer « rouge » est un comportement communicatif pour une communauté culturelle partageant des interactions récurrentes (une histoire) qui signifie un certain état cognitif. Lorsque, au gré des interactions, le comportement linguistique « rouge » peut être partagé par une communauté pour qualifier une certaine sensation, cela signifie que ce que nous nommons la « réalité » n’existe pas stricto sensu, mais existe assurément en tant qu’expérience individuelle et ensuite en tant qu’expérience partagée par un groupe humain, lequel circonscrit des éléments, formule des lois, des relations entre les choses qui restent valables aussi longtemps que ces relations « conviennent » à la situation telle que ce groupe la perçoit. La réalité est une communauté de mondes propres (von Foerster, 1988, p. 69), et l’objectivité relève d’un consensus intersubjectif (Mugur-Schächter, 2006, p. 57). Il est donc possible de nous accorder au quotidien sur la réalité en tant qu’accord sur notre relation au réel. Relation au réel et réalité se co-définissent et forment à la fois le processus et le produit de ce processus. Le ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Daniel Schmitt 109 « vrai » émerge donc à partir de consensus intersubjectifs qui proviennent eux-mêmes de relations au réel, de mondes propres. Dans le cadre du musée, on peut formuler cela de la manière suivante : la réalité physique du musée, de la sculpture, du tableau ou de l’expôt dans le X-monde est la même pour tous les visiteurs, mais c’est l’expérience singulière des visiteurs qui confère une réalité individuelle à ce qui est perçu. Mais où les « vraies choses » se trouvent-elles ? Est-ce dans l’expérience singulière des visiteurs ou préexistent-elles à l’expérience des visiteurs ? Plusieurs remarques invitent à une approche énactive de la muséologie : puisque la réalité est un monde propre qui provient d’une relation spécifique et historique au réel, seuls les visiteurs peuvent décrire les « fragments de réalité » du musée et la « situation communicationnelle » qui émergent au cours de leur expérience ; la nature de la relation à la réalité étant nécessairement liée au corps, produit d’une ontogenèse et d’une histoire cognitive, on peut légitimement penser que l’opérativité de la relation passe aussi par les émotions en tant que liaison, voire en tant que connaissance de la réalité vécue. Or, les émotions en tant que liaison au réel trouvent peu de place dans les théories de l’information. Au-delà des nombreuses enquêtes sur l’expérience des visiteurs (Eidelman, Gottesdiener, & Le Marec, 2013), nous souhaitons ici saisir la nature de l’opérativité de la relation nouée entre les visiteurs et les vraies choses du musée, co-constitutive de la réalité, en tenant compte de la dimension corporelle et émotionnelle de l’expérience. Pour cela, il faut pouvoir analyser l’expérience des visiteurs à travers un cadre épistémique qui permette de penser l’information comme formée à l’intérieur du visiteur et donc de penser la relation en termes d’in-formation. C’est exactement ce que nous propose la théorie de l’énaction. Accéder à la relation visiteur-environnement Nous avons déjà décrit une méthode d’enquête appelée « re-situ subjectif » (Rix & Biache, 2004; Schmitt, 2013) qui permet de saisir et de comprendre la relation des visiteurs avec le réel tel qu’ils le perçoivent durant leur visite. Cette méthode d’enquête s’inscrit dans le sillage du « cours d’expérience », un important programme de recherche développé à partir des années 1990 par Jacques Theureau (1992, 2004, 2006), qui lui-même s’appuie sur la théorie de l’énaction (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1993). Daniel Schacter (1999, p. 82) a de plus montré que le rappel d’informations visuelles propres à l’environnement d’un acteur tel que cet acteur l’a vécu est crucial pour faire l’expérience de « se souvenir ». Il a également montré qu’il suffit seulement d’une fraction de l’événement original pour faire se souvenir de l’épisode entier vécu et qu’enfin le souvenir peut atteindre des niveaux d’exactitude extrêmement élevés lorsque le bon indice est disponible lors de la tentative de rappel. Dans notre cas, la trace vidéo du regard subjectif du visiteur joue le rôle de stimulus ecphorique (processus de rappel du souvenir) et permet à celui-ci de décrire et de commenter son activité, ses émotions, d’une façon assez fidèle à ce qu’il a vécu précédemment. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 110 Pour une approche énactive de la muséologie Figure 1.Les visiteurs sont équipés d’un eye tracker (oculomètre) pendant leur visite. Les visiteurs sont ensuite invités à décrire leur expérience à partir de l’enregistrement vidéo de leur perspective subjective enrichie du point de focalisation de leur regard. © Daniel Schmitt, 2015. En équipant des visiteurs avec des minicaméras et en les exposant, à l’issue de leur visite, à leur propre flux d’images vidéo, on peut accéder très finement à l’articulation de la production de sens telle qu’elle a eu lieu au cours de leur visite. Ce dispositif permet au visiteur de revivre son passé, mais, à la différence d’un entretien réalisé pendant la visite, cette fois le visiteur peut prendre le temps de décrire et de commenter son expérience sans que cela induise un biais significatif dans le cours de sa visite ou dans la description de son expérience. Ce dispositif est adapté à une analyse approfondie de fragments de l’activité de visite (Schmitt, à paraître). Depuis, nous avons enrichi cette approche en équipant les visiteurs avec un eye tracker (oculomètre, figure 1). Le dispositif produit une vidéo de la perception subjective des visiteurs avec une trace de la focalisation de leur regard. La trace vidéo subjective a une fonction d’indiçage de la mémoire épisodique, et l’eye tracker renforce cette fonction en indiquant à tout instant ce sur quoi le visiteur a porté son regard. Lorsque, à l’issue de la visite, nous stimulons le visiteur avec sa propre vidéo subjective enrichie de son point de regard, non seulement le visiteur se souvient de son expérience, mais de plus il peut décrire ses émotions, ses perceptions et les différentes étapes qui lui permettent (ou ne lui permettent pas) de construire du sens. Cet ensemble de verbalisations sert ensuite à catégoriser les attentes, les savoirs mobilisés, la nature des engagements récurrents (voir, toucher, identifier, comparer, mais aussi éprouver de l’empathie, de la crainte, de la méfiance, du dégoût…), et connaître l’état émotionnel quantifié à l’aide d’une échelle graduée. On dispose ainsi d’une méthode qui permet d’approcher, d’identifier et de partager la nature de la relation au monde des visiteurs. Premiers apports Cette approche confirme tout d’abord que les visiteurs entretiennent des relations de grande confiance avec les expôts proposés. Dans la quasi-totalité des expériences de visite, les œuvres sont perçues comme vraies (musées) et les animaux comme de vrais animaux naturalisés (muséums). Même dans les centres de culture scientifique, les manipulations sont appréhendées comme des dispositifs qui donnent accès à de « vrais fragments » de la réalité ; ils sont là pour montrer de « vrais effets », de « vraies lois » de la nature. Il s’agit bien d’espaces qui montrent de « vraies choses ». De même, la « parole vraie » que l’on prête au musée est vécue comme ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Daniel Schmitt 111 telle par les visiteurs de musées et de centres de culture scientifique. La confiance des visiteurs envers la parole du musée déployée sous différentes formes (cartels, panneaux graphiques, audioguides, films…) est exceptionnelle (Schmitt, 2012, p. 162). Du point de vue des visiteurs, le musée est un lieu qui présente de « vraies choses » assorties d’une « parole vraie ». Et, en cela, les entretiens réalisés en re-situ subjectif confirment et confortent la confiance du public envers l’institution muséale, comme l’a montré Joëlle Le Marec (2007). On note cependant l’expression d’un doute, voire d’une certaine défiance à l’égard de l’institution lorsque l’expérience des visiteurs entre en conflit avec leurs croyances religieuses (présenter un squelette humain et un squelette de chimpanzé côte à côte ne prouve pas qu’ils aient un ancêtre commun) (Schmitt, 2012, p. 136). La parole de l’institution perçue comme « vraie » vaut pour ceux qui visitent des musées et la méthode employée ici ne dit rien sur la confiance des non-visiteurs envers l’institution muséale. Les émotions participent assurément de l’opérativité de la relation au réel Les principaux apports de la méthode des entretiens en re-situ subjectifs concernent surtout une nouvelle compréhension de la construction de sens en situation naturelle, ce qui est au cœur de la relation au réel. Lorsque les visiteurs passent le seuil de l’entrée du musée, tous les expôts sont susceptibles de devenir des intrigues. Du point de vue des visiteurs, ces expôts ont été présentés, mis en scène, éclairés, renseignés à dessein. Les visiteurs évoluent de leur point de vue dans un contexte informationnel : leur « mission » consiste à retrouver les raisons qui ont prévalu à cette mise en exposition et, pour cela, il y a des informations ou des indices qui devraient les guider. Toute œuvre, tout expôt, se transforme en une intrigue lorsque le visiteur isole un fragment de l’expôt, une forme, une couleur, un geste qui fait naître des attentes. Ces attentes sont identifiées le plus souvent comme des questions (pourquoi une forme, une couleur, une relation, une action…) qui appellent des réponses pour lesquelles chaque visiteur mobilise ses savoirs mais aussi ses expériences sous forme de souvenirs, d’images, de rêves… tout élément qui pourrait contribuer à relier le visiteur à ce fragment de réalité en rapport avec la question qu’il se pose. La « parole vraie » du musée (le cartel, le film, le message sonore, etc.) peut être saisie et mobilisée pour tenter de répondre aux attentes. C’est cette quête de ressources en rapport avec les attentes qui crée un sentiment de tension au sein du corps pensant et agissant du visiteur. Les ressources d’information alentour ou embarquées, tout comme les ressources proposées par les accompagnants sont importantes mais loin d’être le seul moyen permettant de construire une relation avec les expôts. On constate qu’il peut exister de nombreuses formes de résolution de la tension qui passent par un vécu émotionnel sans que l’on puisse parler de captation d’information ou de réponse à une question formelle. La situation communicationnelle semble indispensable pour construire l’autorité de la parole sur les « fragments de réalité ». En revanche, elle ne joue pas un rôle systématique dans la résolution des tensions. L’empathie par exemple est en soi une forme possible de résolution de la tension et du point de vue du visiteur ; il s’agit d’une relation qui « convient » à la situation telle que celui-ci la perçoit. Vivre la scène, ressentir le contexte, l’ambiance d’un tableau peut suffire à être « connaissance ». Le visiteur vit des émotions qu’il prête à ce qu’il ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 112 Pour une approche énactive de la muséologie perçoit, il « ressent » les émotions d’un « autre ». D’une façon qui lui appartient, le visiteur « connaît » émotionnellement la chose qu’il perçoit, et cette connaissance est suffisante pour que la relation existe et fasse sens. L’empathie est une relation opérative qui ne relève pas nécessairement de la communication du musée au sens informationnel, mais plutôt d’une histoire personnelle. On trouve aussi des relations construites à partir du souvenir, du rêve ou de la réminiscence.Ce type de relation fait revivre une relation émotionnelle où le visiteur éprouve des émotions proches de celles qu’il a déjà vécues. La reviviscence d’une expérience peut également suffire à établir un lien avec l’objet perçu et qui n’est pas nécessairement contenu ou induit par la situation communicationnelle. Regarder un phacochère naturalisé dans un muséum et y voir Pumbaa – un personnage de dessin animé – suffit à établir une relation qui fait sens pour le visiteur et qui lui permet de se relier à son environnement, à le connaître. Il n’y a pas d’information nécessaire, mais simplement une reviviscence qui naît dans un contexte muséal, et la reviviscence de cette émotion est également une relation opérative, car elle est connaissance ou reconnaissance de ce qui est perçu. Nous identifions également des relations comme le « frisson », une relation où l’émotion oscille entre la crainte, la peur et le sentiment de sécurité. Cette émotion de frisson suffit à établir une relation avec l’objet ; elle est connaissance pour le visiteur. Par exemple Juliette au musée zoologique regarde, fascinée, des araignées. Elle connaît les araignées à travers une émotion qui oscille entre le dégoût et l’attirance : Après voilà les araignées parce que je suis complètement arachnophobe… du coup je me suis vraiment arrêtée sur les araignées… [ici] elles ne peuvent pas m’embêter… oui, les araignées, en fait, ça me fascine de les voir comme ça, je pourrais presque les regarder des heures… oui, dégoûtantes, enfin, ça me donne des frissons dans le dos. Ce type de relation n’est pas propre aux musées zoologiques.On le retrouve dans tous les musées. Roman devant une chimère du MoyenÂge : J’ai un petit peu, pas peur, mais disons, il y a une émotion, un petit peu de méfiance… ils sont comme des démons qui sont endormis… qui [vont] surgir, mais bon, je suis dans une autre époque. La notion d’information ne suffit pas à rendre compte de l’opérativité de la relation qui passe par des émotions. Le corps en émotion est bien une forme de relation opérative en ce sens qu’elle relie le sujet au fragment perçu et que cette relation est suffisante pour « connaître » le monde des visiteurs tel qu’ils le perçoivent. Le corpsémotion n’est pas nécessairement le résultat d’une situation communicationnelle au sens classique des théories de l’information quelles qu’elles soient. Le corps-émotion relève d’un couplage à l’environnement qui fait émerger à la fois perception et tension, et dont l’apaisement s’accompagne fréquemment d’une sensation de plaisir. Ce qui est nouveau, ce n’est pas de dire que les visiteurs de musées vivent des émotions, mais d’affirmer que les émotions constituent une forme créative de relation aux expôts qui, du point de vue des visiteurs, peut suffire à les « connaître ». En ce sens, les émotions sont aussi des relations opératives qui permettent de connaître les « vraies choses » du musée. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Daniel Schmitt 113 Nous avons vu que le musée montrait de « vraies choses » et qu’il les associait à une « parole vraie » ou, en tout cas, digne de confiance. Mais le crédit accordé aux vraies choses et à la parole vraie du musée est un préalable. Car cela ne suffit pas pour que les visiteurs puissent construire du sens. Le schéma relationnel qui semble rendre compte de la construction de sens et de l’expérience peut s’énoncer comme suit : un objet dans un musée est présumé vrai. Ce réel sert de substrat au visiteur, qui cherche à circonscrire un élément, à saisir une partie du « fragment de réalité ». À un moment précis, l’objet vrai peut devenir une intrigue pour le visiteur et, lorsque c’est le cas, l’intrigue appelle une résolution. L’intrigue peut prendre la forme d’une question formelle, d’une interrogation (Que représente la scène du tableau ? Pourquoi ces animaux naturalisés ont des couleurs différentes ?, etc.), et on peut alors en effet parler de communication sur la réalité. Mais l’intrigue peut aussi se résoudre à travers les émotions qu’elle génère, comme l’empathie, le souvenir, la reviviscence, le frisson, le dégoût ou la peur. Elle s’autorésout en quelque sorte à travers la perception et l’histoire du corps-émotion. Le point important que nous souhaitons mettre en évidence est le suivant : que l’on parle de résolution-savoir ou de résolution-émotion, dans les deux cas, du point de vue des visiteurs, il s’agit bien d’une relation au réel qui est connaissance de la réalité. Quand les visiteurs affirment « comprendre » quelque chose dans les musées, nous devons entendre précisément qu’ils arrivent à relier et à se relier à un ensemble d’éléments perçus d’une façon qui convient à la tension qu’ils vivent (Schmitt, 2015). La communication sur la réalité est un préalable qui actualise la parole vraie du musée et qui offre des pistes de tensions et de résolutions, donc qui structure un potentiel de relations au monde du musée. Mais les émotions, comme la médiation, permettent de réaliser des liaisons parfaitement opérationnelles pour connaître la réalité du musée. Perspectives La réalité et la relation au réel sont les deux faces d’un même objet. Questionner l’opérativité de la relation nouée entre les visiteurs et les vraies choses revient à saisir la nature de la relation au monde dans ses différentes dimensions. La méthode des entretiens réalisés en re-situ subjectif tente de saisir la nature de la relation visiteurenvironnement, co-constitutive de la réalité, en insistant sur sa dimension corporelle, cognitive et émotionnelle. Pour les visiteurs, connaître un fragment de réalité est bien une relation opératoire, mais cette connaissance ne consiste pas toujours à rechercher des savoirs formels pour pouvoir se lier aux fragments, aux expôts. Connaître des fragments de réalité, c’est avant tout se relier à la chose perçue d’une « façon qui convient », c’est réussir à réduire la tension que la chose perçue fait surgir, c’est trouver une résolution à l’intrigue. À la lumière de ces premières recherches, une relation opérative peut être vue comme un lien, une relation qui relie à la fois le corps et l’esprit à un fragment de réel, lien qui fait émerger une tension, elle-même résolue par différentes solutions, dont les savoirs formels ne sont qu’un aperçu des solutions possibles. Les relations émotionnelles semblent également très efficaces pour pouvoir se lier, pour établir une relation stable et robuste avec la réalité. Poursuivre des recherches en ce sens pourrait enrichir considérablement notre connaissance de la construction de sens et la nature des relations opératives des visiteurs dans les musées. Plus largement, quelles ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 114 Pour une approche énactive de la muséologie que soient les activités humaines, ces recherches pourraient éclairer les processus mis en œuvre lorsque nous construisons des connaissances en situation écologique. Références Bottineau, D. (2011). Parole, corporéité, individu et société : l’embodiment entre le representationnalisme et la cognition incarnée, distribuée, biosémiotique et enactive dans les linguistiques o cognitives.Intellectica, n 56, 187-220. Desvallées, A.,& Mairesse, F. (2005). Sur la muséologie. Culture & Musées, o n 6, 131-155. Eidelman, J., Gottesdiener, H.,& Le Marec, J. (2013). Visiter les musées : expérience, appropriation, participation. Culture & Musées, horssérie, 73-113. Le Marec, J. Publics et musées, la confiance éprouvée. L’Harmattan, Paris, 2007. Mairesse, F.,& Desvallées, A. (2005). Brève Histoire de la muséologie. Dans P.-A. Mariaux (dir.).L’objet de la muséologie (pp. 1-50). Neuchâtel : Institut d’histoire de l’art et de muséologie. Maturana, H.,& Varela, F. (1994). L’Arbre de la connaissance. Racines biologiques de la compréhension humaine.Paris : Addison-Wesley. Mugur-Schächter, M. (2006). Sur le tissage des connaissances. Paris : Lavoisier. Rix, G.,& Biache, M.-J. (2004). Enregistrement en perspective subjective située et entretien en re-situ subjectif : une méthodologie de la o constitution de l’expérience. Intellectica, n 38, 363-396. Schacter, D. (1999). À la recherche de la mémoire. Le passé, l’esprit et le cerveau. Bruxelles : De Boeck. Schiele, B. (2012). La muséologie, un domaine de recherches. Dans A. Meunier & J. Luckerhoff (dir.) (2012).La Muséologie, champ de théories et de pratiques (pp. 79-100). Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec. Schmitt, D. (2012). Expérience de visite et construction des connaissances : le cas des musées de sciences et des centres de culture scientifique. Thèse de doctorat. Strasbourg, Université de Strasbourg. Schmitt, D. (2013). Décrire et comprendre l’expérience des visiteurs. ICOFOM Study Series, 42, 205-216. Schmitt, D. (2015). Ce que “comprendre” signifie pour les jeunes visiteurs dans un centre de culture scientifique. Dans P. Chavot & A. Masseran (dir.). Les Cultures des sciences en Europe (2). Dispositifs, publics, acteurs, institutions (p. 225-238). Nancy : PUN – éditions universitaires de Lorraine. Coll. Questions de o communication, série actes, n 25. Schmitt, D. (à paraître). Saisir l’expérience des publics dans les musées : comment construit-on du sens lors d’une visite ? Dans J.-M. Barbier & M. Durand (dir.), Encyclopédie de l’analyse des activités. Paris : PUF. Theureau, J. (1992). Le Cours d’action : analyse sémio-logique. Essai d’une anthropologie cognitive située. Berne : Peter Lang. Theureau, J. (2004). Le Cours d’action : méthode élémentaire. Toulouse : Octarès. Theureau, J. (2006). Le Cours d’action : méthode développée.Toulouse : Octarès. Varela, F. (1989). Autonomie et connaissance.Paris : Le Seuil. Varela, F.,Thompson, E.,& Rosch, E. (1993).L’Inscription corporelle de l’esprit. Paris : Le Seuil. von Foerster, H. (1988). La Construction d’une réalité. Dans P. Watzlawick (dir.),L’Invention de la réalité, contributions au constructivisme (p. 45-69). Paris : Le Seuil. von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Introduction à un constructivisme radical. Dans P. Watzlawick (dir.).L’invention de la réalité, contributions au constructivisme.Paris : Le Seuil. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Daniel Schmitt 115 Wagensberg, J. (2006). Toward a total museology through conversation between audience, museologists, architects and builders. Dans R. Terrada et al., The Total Museum (p. 11-103). Barcelone : Sacyr. Résumé Au cours de leur visite dans un musée, les visiteurs font preuve d’une créativité surprenante pour pouvoir se lier, se relier à un réel qu’ils construisent en grande partie eux-mêmes. Réussir à saisir l’articulation de ces liaisons est d’un intérêt scientifique qui dépasse le cadre du musée, car ces liaisons renseignent sur les modalités de construction des connaissances en situation écologique. La théorie de l’énaction offre un cadre conceptuel fécond pour étudier la muséologie en tant que relation opérative entre les visiteurs et le réel. Mots-clés : muséologie, réalité, émotions, énaction, expérience des visiteurs. Abstract Towards an enactive approach of museology During their visit of a museum, visitors show a surprising creativity to be able to bind, to connect themselves to a reality that they largely construct themselves. Succeeding in analyzing the articulation of these links is of a scientific interest that goes beyond the museum field because these links inform the construction modalities of knowledge in ecological situation. The theory of enaction provides a fruitful conceptual framework to study museology as an operative relationship between visitors and reality. Key words : museology, reality, emotions, enaction, visitor experience ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016 Case Studies Etudes de cas Estudios de caso ATOMS AND BITS OF CULTURAL HERITAGE TOWARDS AN ECOSYSTEM OF MUSEUM INDUSTRY IN THE DIGITAL AGE Shuchen Wang Aalto University – Finland Ubiquitous computing technology is believed to realize Malraux’s museum without walls proposed in 1947. Previously grounded on materiality, museum communication and education now embarks on a new frontier with digitization. Cloud, linked data, semantic web, online exhibition, mobile application, epublication, augmented reality, interactive display, gamification, 3D scanning and printing – all these cutting-edge technologies contribute to a vision that visitor/end-users can visit any cultural site at any time from any where. As ideal as it sounds, the journey is still paved with obstacles due to unsynchronized technical, financial, administrative, and legislative systems. Among the strongest performers in innovative digital technology (van Dijk, 2008), Finland provides a good example. Modest in many ways, arts and culture here acts rather as social commons than consumable luxuries for the privileged (Robertson, 2005). Currently ongoing are nationwide GLAM (Gallery, Library, Archive, Museum) digitization, FINNA – the centralized search interface for all cultural institutes, and the latest reorganization of the national gallery’s governance. It is expected to see a sustainable Operation model constructed between the atoms and bits of cultural heritage. Nevertheless, what follows is still to be considered for development. Virtual Representation of Authentic Experience Differ from other memory institutions, the museum presents the authentic object in a reconstructed context. Walking around the exhibition hall, our perceiving body is provided with a chance to have direct contact with a past embodied and enshrined in the object’s aura (Benjamin, 1936). Within this contact between the information of our physical senses and the sensed object, a limbo-like space is unrolled to engender a sense of inside and outside, self and the ‘other’, I-the-(wo)man and the lifeworld (the thing), meanwhile projecting an inter-subjectivity, enabling our self to penetrate into a past/space/horizon about which a temporal and spatial notion is nowhere to be found and we thus become part of it (Merleau-Ponty, 1945). Other than knowing, understanding, and reasoning, this bodily episteme can be acquired only through physical perception (Varto, 2013). Yet, to transfer or recreate the sensuality of the object onto various digital platforms remains an ontological challenge – the virtual representation of museum experience. Value Network of Museum Economy in Digitization Cultural tourism used to be the main tool to generate revenue for the museum industry. Now with digitization, new business models are to be sought urgently, especially when public subsidy and private sponsors remain in constant decline. Joining in the up-to-date innovation economy (creative economy, experience economy) becomes an underlying expectation of many cultural policy makers and GLAM authorities. How to link different ‘values’ presumed in technology, business, and arts and culture, and to establish a sustainable value chain becomes essentially important. Value in humanities mostly denotes personalconcepts, subjective and objective, associated with “belief, right, ethic, and desire”. Nevertheless, in technology it relates to usefulness so is connected with “appreciation,merit, and perfection”; and in business it signifies worth and can be translated into “advantage, superiority, and grace”. The correlation of value assessments between technology and business is much studied, as revealed by Choudary (2015) but not much between these subjects and arts and culture. To mend this gap, Ng and Smith (2012) try to propose an integrated value framework, and usage is held to measure the value of arts and culture connecting to the technology and business value chain. However, a convincing mechanism is yet to be found. 120 Challenge and Opportunity for Innovation Business of GLAM Technology A focal area with the best potential to generate business opportunity for digital cultural heritage is located in the interaction between GLAM and visitor/end-user, online and on-site. Three layers, as illustrated here, constitute the many digital platforms of the museum industry: 1) data, 2) technology infrastructure, 3) application, network, market place, or community. Apart from the information architecture of these three layers, tasks also remain in interoperability, user interface (front end), and tech interface (back end) between them. Innovation businesses should prosper if allowed by relevant administration and legislation, e.g. mobile guide app, in terms of application, collection management system in terms of infrastructure, and internet archive in terms of data. To further develop these three layers of digital business for GLAM, the main concerns are: • Technical: database standardization, interoperability, location, functionality, user interface, user experience; • Social: digital divide, online visitor behavior, assessment of museum communication on digital platforms; • Financial: monetization of value exchange, business model, licensee, copyright. Knowing that visitor/end-users enter the virtual world of GLAM through various screens, the value exchange networks are therefore supposed to happen among units like cultural institute, hardware, operation system provider, app store, digital advertisement agency, etc. This picture demonstrates a possible roadmap for arts and culture to join the current innovation digital technology economy. Hardware here indicates desktop, laptop, tablet, and wearable options; operating systems can be Windows, Android, iOS, etc.; and the museum as content provider fabricates the online collection, virtual exhibition, epublication, and education activities online and mobile. It is indeed promising, according to this value chain analysis, to build a sustainable ecosystem of museum industry between the visitor/end-user, material and immaterial cultural content, and digital technology to boost innovation business in arts and culture. Perhaps it may not take long to reach the ideal museum without walls, fairly and substantially. References Benjamin, W. (2009 [1936]).The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.CBA publishing. Choudary, S. (2015).The Platform Stack: a unifying framework for digital business models. Platform Thinking. Ng, I.,& Smith L. (2012).An Integrative Framework of Value.Towards a Better Understanding of the Role of Value in Market and Marketing Review of Marketing Research. Volume 9, 207-243, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945).Phenomenology of Perception. Gallimard: Paris. Robertson, I. (Ed). (2005).Understanding International Art Markets and Managements. Routledge: London. van Dijk, J. (2008).The Digital Divide in Europe.The Handbook of Internet Politics. Routledge: London. Varto, J. (2013).Otherwise than Knowing. Helsinki: Publisher Aalto. *Thanks are due to the Finnish Cultural Foundation for supporting this research project, of which the third part relating to the innovation technology economy with digital cultural heritage is summarized here. Besides, those lengthy discussions with Timo Itälä and Mika Nyman are earnestly appreciated. ICOFOM Study Series, 44, 2016