East, West, unified Germany: one language, two developments in museological theory (original) (raw)
2021, Theory of museology: main schools of thought, 1960–2000
Germany gives the unique possibility to observe disciplinary developments at both sides of the Iron Curtain but based on the same history, argued in the same language. East Germany saw the consequences of a centralistic dictatorship: a state-controlled but vivid discourse on the fundamental principles and structures of museology, the foundation of central institutions and academic journals, a productive international exchange within the Eastern hemisphere. West Germany was definitely not interested in the development of the young discipline museology, although two ICOM conferences published ideas of a French and a Czechoslovakian museologist and a national ‘Institut für Museumskunde’ (‘institute for museology’) was founded. Theory building and terminology started either in transdisciplinary fields (e. g. visitor studies for different cultural institutions) or by solitary individuals with experiences in museum work and in researching and teaching at university. Independently but quite similarly, both German states developed a separate museology of history. The German unification did not lead to any synthesis but finished institutions, journals, and most individual working life of theoreticians with GDR origin: a sharp cut of all results of efforts in East Germany except for the ‘Fachschule für Museologen’ (‘college of museologists’). Continuity can be seen in the long-time discourse on the meaning of things—starting already in 1940—and in the dominance of the former Western system of individual, free-choice efforts and transdisciplinary inputs without any academic institutionalisation.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Musologica Brunensia, 2016
This paper reflects upon the connections between two museological pioneers, Z. Z. Stránský and F. Waidacher. Stránský developed the object of knowledge of museology in Brno, while Waidacher submitted a state of research and established a museological terminology especially for German-speaking areas. The connections between the two museologists have not been researched in detail until now. Therefore, this paper focuses on the publications of the two authors concerning the development of museology as an academic discipline. For the first time, these publications are used as primary sources to try to show the progression of museology as an academic discipline.
Art History and Visual Studies in Europe : Transnational Discourses and National Frameworks
Reflection on the history and practice of art history has long been a major topic of research and scholarship, and this volume builds on this tradition by offering a critical survey of many of the major developments in the contemporary discipline, such as the impact of digital technologies, the rise of visual studies or new initiatives in conservation theory and practice. Alongside these methodological issues this book addresses the mostly neglected question of the impact of national contexts on the development of the discipline. Taking a wide range of case studies, this book examines the impact of the specific national political, institutional and ideological demands on the practice of art history. The result is an account that both draws out common features and also highlights the differences and the plurality of practices that together constitute art history as a discipline.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Related papers
International Lexicon of Aesthtetics, 2019