Against the "art of forgetting": memory - museum - history (original) (raw)
Related papers
“Selective memory”: A Museum and Its Past
Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art, XII, 2022
“Selective memory” of the past, borrowing the definition from cognitive psychology and neuro- science, represents a phenomenon closely tied to the history of classical archaeology and the antiquarian, specif- ically within Italian museum studies, as a cultural-ideological result of 19th and 20th century historical events. A research recently undertaken into the current situation of museums pertaining to a subregional district of south- ern Latium, the region of central western Italy of which Rome is the county seat, constituted an opportunity for comparison based on the analysis of some indicators, both aesthetical and technical: museological and museo- graphical approaches, management issues, exhibition design, and communication strategies. A common thread is a perpetuation of bygone ideological and propaganda symbols as nostalgia for the past and the reactivation of historical, political, and anthropological phenomena. As a case study the Archaeological Civic Museum of Terracina, a city 100 kilometers south of Rome, has been chosen, in consideration of its long history and the possibility to assist to the evolution of the fittings and locations from 1894, the year of foundation, until today, by dint of photos, inventories, and period letters. The central theme of criterion for selecting the archaeological material to be exhibited has been, since the beginning, the past that we choose to tell. This “selective memory” is identifiable in the different treatment reserved to single objects: some have been collected and preserved, some have been scattered, some have been perceived as unrepresentative, and thus deemed unworthy of display or narration, and stored in depots. The museum has consequently selected only certain aspects of the past of its community, which is almost entirely related to its Late Roman Republican and Imperial period, an attitude which in the literature is frequently referred to as “Romanolatry”. The cult of the “white archaeology” removes from consideration the material culture of everyday life, of prehistoric, protohistoric, late antique, medieval, and Renaissance phases, even when well documented. Is the museum a place of oblivion or a place of memory? Keywords: classical archaeology, museum studies, antiquarian, nostalgia, propaganda, memory
2022 - Les Cahiers de Muséologie n. 02
Les Cahiers de Muséologie, 2022
Cindy LEBAT Une muséologie du sensible : enjeux et conséquences pour les visiteurs déficients visuels Résumé Cet article aborde le recours aux dispositifs faisant appel aux sens dans les muséographies contemporaines et son impact sur l'expérience de visite des personnes en situation de handicap visuel. Il propose un cadrage sur les dispositifs sensibles et sensoriels dans les pratiques muséographiques et de médiation culturelle, en explicitant le contexte historique et social qui a rendu possible leur émergence. L'article est alors l'occasion de se pencher sur des formes muséographiques particulières, comme les muséographies d'ambiance ou d'immersion, et de les analyser au regard des enjeux muséologiques qu'elles soulèvent en termes d'expérience de visite et d'intention muséale. Puis, à partir d'un travail de terrain mené dans des musées franciliens et auprès de personnes déficientes visuelles, l'article s'intéresse aux conséquences de ces nouvelles formes muséographiques à la fois sur l'accessibilité de la visite, mais aussi sur les représentations du handicap relayées par l'institution muséale.
THE MUSEUM AS MEDIUM OF MEMORY: ON THE BIOGRAPHY OF HERITAGE COLLECTIONS
Over the course of this discourse, I have outlined in brief certain significant challenges facing the museum of the 21st century. My predecessor, Ad de Jong, in 2009 queried when the next turning point in the museum domain would arrive. In my view, we still find ourselves on the turning point between modernism and postmodernism. Reflecting on now well-entrenched modernity is crucial, but also problematic when it comes to interpretation into museum praxis. The example of the clay seal with its likeness of Caesar makes clear that an entire world may lurk behind an apparently arbitrary object. The differing value systems of modernism and postmodernism exist alongside each other to a significant extent, but also regularly collide. How do we deal with this: do we want to go back to the past, do we cleave to what we have, or do we go with the times? I hope to have clarified that we constantly create our own past by whatever means, that we link that past to places and objects, and that this is inevitably and irrevocably bound up with collective memory. I have used Caesar’s clay seal as example. It reveals the different types of historical awareness and the difference in evaluation. That awareness is significant because it may be an ordering principle for museums. This chair concerns the study of objects and I have aimed to clarify that objects are the vehicle for our collective memory. Their meaning in terms of dynamic heritage is always in motion. I spoke about ‘going with the times’. That sounds so simple, but it means that we open ourselves to change, that we are curious about the other, sensitive to the biography and diversity locked up in the people and objects around us. We then arrive once more at the many-voiced and layered nature of our own identity. Our amnesia is irrevocable, and the things we do gather up or preserve seems arbitrary. When the temple archive in Edfu burnt down hundreds of documents were lost. The clay seals that remained and were preserved after the fire in my view symbolise the balance that we should strive for in heritage management. Here the three stations of past, present and future form a simple guideline. In the first place, the clay seal is an historical source, unlocking as an object different perspectives on Julius Caesar. At the same time it is important that we try to link this clay seal with the here and now. Just last year the seal was exhibited for the first time during the MuseumCamp at the Allard Pierson Museum. A publication is currently being prepared, and in the near future everyone will soon be able to make a 3D-print of it. This object will thereby provide inspiration for new generations, and new layers of meaning will grow. What is important is that we have to allow ourselves a reservoir. It took more than a century before the relevance and meaning of this clay seal were perceived. But here we confront another paradox: that of the digital storage of our recollections. The more we store digitally, the more vulnerable and evanescent our digital memory turns out to be. At the end of this lecture, I am afraid I have to confuse you a little. The clay seal with Caesar’s likeness has been the leitmotiv in my argument. But we do not know what Caesar really looked like by any means. Yes, we have coins depicting Caesar, but they are not uniform. And the likeness of sculpted portraits is still debated. Nevertheless, there is an image of Caesar in our collective memory, and so also in this museum object. In any event, this clay seal impression participates in our perception. And that is what I mean by the museum as medium of memory.
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.