joint colloquium methodologyof museology and...
TRANSCRIPT
/ ICOM International Committee for the Training of PersonnelICOM International Committee for Museology
Joint colloquium
METHODOLOGY OF MUSEOlOGYAND PROFESSIONAL TRA~NING
London, July 1983
ICOM International Committee for Museology
Symposium
MUSEUM - TERR.~TORY ......... SOCiETYNEWTENDENCiES/NEW PRACTICES
london, July 1983
/
*
*
Contents
Joint colloquiumMETHODOLOGY OF MUS EO LOGYAND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
Gluzinski, Wojciech - Wroclav, Poland
comments 2
Str~nsk§, Zbyn~k Z - Brno, Czechoslovakia
comments 14
Symposium~1USEUM - TERRITORY - SOCIETYNE"I TENDENCIES / NEI'I PRACTICES
paper on the work of the ecomuseum 23
Mayrand,
basic
Pierre - Montreal, Canada
Str~nsk~. zbyn~k Z - Grno, Czechoslovakia
comments 28
Stockh0lm, July 1983
Wojciech Gluzinski, Wroclaw - Poland
REIlARXS ON PAnRS ON rIlE SUBJROT
ImTHODOLOGY OF IIUSEOLOGY AND TRAINING OF nRSOliNEL
I. general remark~
COMMENTS
The oolleo~ion of papers:on the above subjeot well illustratAB
the ait~ation in present-day museology. As far as its obJeotive
knowledge of itself 18 oonoerned, ltis apparent that museology~. .
dissolves ln many subJeotive notions; as far 8S its matter ia oon
oerned, on the other hand, it dioBolves in many different disoi
plines. Hus~ologi8ta speak many different languages lin semantio
sensei whloh are so impreoise that ~ven the oomparison of their
ideas is diffioult. Th~ ideological differeno~s Professor Buroa.
oo.plains of oannot be blamed for that ao they have found no re
flection whatever 1n the presented papers. The problem lies, into
m1 mind, 1n the way in whioh the question of museology 1a approa
ohed. ~eryone who takes it up endeavours to oreate at onoe an
overall pioture ot mus801ogy, but, first, in the image and likeness
ot hi. 0 w n ideal, and, seoond, with the help of e x 1 a t 1 n [
notions, worn out 8S they are by long use and, therefore, blurred,
ambiguous, and variously oomprehended. I think, theretore, that,
rollowiag the example or British analyt10al philosophers, oue Bhou~
begin with analys1ng the bas10 not1ons~ and that at pre8ent thRt
18 the most important task. An endeavour of suoh an approaoh 1a my
book, ~ podoiaw muzeolog11 !The Bases of Museology!, Warsaw, 1980,
wbioh beoause ot the 1ansuage barrier !in ethnioal sense! is out
ot reaoh ot & w1der publio; a p1tYr tor it systematizes and analYB~'
2
~be probl~ms whioh are also disoussed in the presented papers.
l'or all the vari"lty of views presented in the papers Bome oOllUllon
pointe oan be found. The definitions of museology, different as
they are, represent in essenoe two types of its understanding based
on an empirioal asoertainment that there is a separate field of
aotiv1ty - field M. However, some see this field from the point ot
view of the funotional elem"lnts making it up IdefinitioDs ot p
typel, while others try to disoern ita sense as a totality Idef1
n1t10ns of S-type/.
Type P: In these definitions field M 1s represented by the
museum along with ita funotions and partioular work prooesses, and,
aooordingly, museology is eithor to deal with all the aspeots ot
museum work luniversalism - S. M. Nair, for 1notanoe/, or with the
most important ones only II. Jahn/. In order to integrate suoh an
atomized museum into a funotional whole it 1s neoessary to adopt
a unifying faotor in the shape of normative musp-ology divided into
different museologiel3, suoh as those oreated. in greatest numbero
by ~he Dutoh oolleagues. However, all those mussologies have their
specifioity in their names only, as it would be diffioult to tell
what is wmuaeologioal" about them.
Definitions of this type enolose implioitly a meohanistio Ith~
.useum - a funotional aggregatel and instrumental Ithe museum
a tool for the realization of arbitrarily imposed and heteronomio
a1msl oomprehens1on of tho mUU9um, aom~th1ng I have submitted to
a oritioal examination in my book.
Type 5; Pield M i8 being approaohed here from the point of view
of a human being who inVests it with some sense. This Bense 10
saen 1n the relation ot the human being to reality, some sae it,
however, 8S "admiration" /W. Russio/, while others a8 the "innate
tendenoy to oolleot" /J. Hodge/_ This type of definition expresses
3
interesting and, in my opinion, fruitful intuitions, the oonorete
formulations, however. laok preoision, and the authors are not
oonsistent, slipping in their further oonsiderations towards the•
positions related to type F /universalism, normative museology,
variety of museolog1es, or at least an instrumental oomprehension
of the museum/. A pity, for the beginnings were good.
II. Detailed remarka
I skip here the exoellent paper of Z. Z. Stransky /Czeohoalovakia/
as I agree in full with its oontents. I also leave out the problems
related to training, and restriot myself to purely museologtoal
problems as the first derive from the latter, they spring from the
oomprehension of museology and the museum. I would like to stress
that all the papers oontain many interesting ideas and remarks
/espeoially on the subjeotof training/ whioh it would be worth
while to synthetize.
s. K. NAIR - India
The definition of museology given by the author represents the
universalist comprehension of the disoipline: mus601ogy's task 1s
to deal with all the aspeots of museum work, and, henoe, 1t ap-
'pears as a sum of knowledge on various speoifio sUbjeots drawn
trom various speoialistio disoiplines. Thus museology as suoh
dissolves in the variety and speoifioity ot the knowledge and
m!thoda of those other d1ao1p11nes. What 1s ·museolog1oal~ boila
down to a systematization ot this un-own knowledge aooording to
a pragmatioal oriterion iB8u1ng trom the totality ot museum work.
A systematization, however, i5 in itsel~ not a knowledge, but a
methodological manipulation. Moreover, the author, as a majority
ot the diDouD8~d ones, represents an instrumental wld meohanistio
oomprehension ot the museum. The museum, however, 1s not a tunotlo-
4
nal agpn~, bu~ fire~ o~ all an entity invested in all its elements
with a specifio sense, and, therefore, museology oannot be a "me
ohanios" sinoe meohanios is unable to reason out this sense.
G. W. BURCAW USA
Acoording ~o the author museology is to be a normative Boienoe:
/a/ it "presoribes what museums ought to be in regard to sooiety",
Ib/ i~ "deffes the partioular organizational and prooedural struc
tures and relationahipB". Two kinde of norws effeot from this: /a/
axiologioal, and Ibl praotioal. In what way does museology Justify
ita normative sentenoes? Axiologioal norms oan be justified on the
ground of some philosophy, 800iolog10al knowledge, or even politioal
or sooial dootrine; praotioal norms on the ground of the knowledge
o~ partioular speolalistio disolpllneo. ThUS, on the one hand, we
have norms based on definite systems of values, and, on the other
hand, norma based on oausal laws or other general sentenoes of
soienoe whioh means that they oannot issue from eaoh other 10 lo
gical sense. Prom the axiological norm: ~Th~ museum should tp'8ch,
~or 801enoe io a sooial valuo" do not eneue any norms describing
in what way it should be done. A~10logioal norms have only an im
perative and a mo~ivating ~unotion. They indioate what goala should
be aimed at aDd give reasona for this in philosophical, aooiological,
politioal juatiticationa. They direot the aotivity but do Dot glv~
any oonorete, detailed ruleBo~ aotivity. Henoe, the same partioular
aotivities may serve different norma of imperative funotion as well
as different motivations, and the only thing that will ohange is
the oonfiguration ot superior goula. And so it 1s 1n faot. In all
museums the world over the basio mueeum work £o~low8 tho name pro-
oesses ot aotivity, different are only auparlor goals 3S the author
h1maelt atates on p. J of hie paper.
fhe desoribed 20gi081 and opArat1on~ 03eaura bp."tween the two
5
kinds or norms oauees a split o~ general muaeology into two inde
pendent seotions: /1/ museum dootrinephilosophioal-ideologioal in
oharaoter, and /2/ a "oompendium" of general knowledge abou~ the
runotioning or ~he museum /more about that in my book/. In their
particular expansions the praotioal norms inoluded in this oompen
dium rind their jU8tirications in theorems of appropriate speoialis
tio disoiplines; that applies also to so oalled speoialized museolo
gies. Henoe, those norma are the results or oonsequenoes of researoh
results of other disoiplines, and belong to them rather than to
muaeology. What ia more, museology would be helpless without them.
It appears, then, that the ·oompendium" along with speoialized mu
s60logies is not an aooumulation of museologioal knowledge but of
an alien one. Thus the seotion oalled museum dootrine remains the
only on~ peouliar to normative muaeology. This seotion, however,
oonsists of unstable and oaprioious 6xiologioal norms shaped aooor
ding to plaoe, time and personal preferenoes of partioular museolo
giats. Henoe, it d06S not possess any gnosiologioal value, or, for
that matter, any operational value for basic museum Nork. Its entire
role oonsists in findlng out what museums should be in regard to
sooiety whioh, however, implies that museums are formations
b r 0 ugh t to sooiety as if from without. On the other hand,
If museums were oreated and have eXisted for several hundred years,
there must have been some 8001a1 need of them. They emerged from
1001ety Uadf, were Dot 1mpolI~d on 1t, and are immanent and not
transoendent to it. It appears from this that the need that haB
oreated them 1s ooded in them and deo1dea boui their es!enoe.
Hp,noe , it 1s superfluous to state &:lobi trarl1y *hat museums should
be 1n re6ard to soolety, but there 10 an urgent nEod of. disoovering
what thp.y are Inthelr deepest esSenoe. The aDSl'fer to the que"tion;
"What 1s and in ~hat oonsists the essenoe of the museum?" should be
6
regarded as the main research task of muaeology.
I. JAHB - GDR
Aooording to the author the role of mUBeology should oonsist in
1ntegrating the knowledge of varioua di80iplines towards the crea
t10n of a muzeologioal the 0 r y. In what this integratlon
should oonslst and what should the theory be? Let us analyse, tor
1nstanoe, the tollowlng prinoiple taken trom the literature IF.
Waldmann, ~Galerlen alter Melater~, in~ Kunstmu8ee~~ dae
deutsoh~ Yolk, Hftnchen, 1919, p.511 and whioh oan be formulated in
the folloWing manner: "For all x-s, it x la a small painting o~ tue
northern sohool, the most favourable illumination tor x i8 a high
lateral one~. There are museologioal terms in the sentenoe: ~a
small painting of the northern sohool" , and ~the moat favourable
illumination~ and so it may be oonsidered as B museologioal "law".
In :taot, bowever, it expresses an optioal law illuatrating rel_
tions existing between the variable phyaloal parameters S ot the
sur:taoe o:t any solid body x and the parameters L ot the light re
flected from it, variable aocording to the optional angles ot in
oidenoe A and the parameters L. One of the parameters of olass L
with the oorresponding angle of 018s8 A is the one most favourable
tor "small piotures ot the northern Bohool" trom the auseologioal
point ot view. But, first, the oited optioal law is an ideallzQtio
nal one lit does not take into aooount different seoondary oondi
tions, e.g. the thiokness and slant ot the pane through ~hloh the
light talls/, and, seoondly, it does not say whioh one ot the p
rameters L is the most favourable :tor museum ends. Henoe, the opt~
oal law itself is in this 08se u8elesu; it may well explain the
museologioal prinoiple IAlaw"/ at lasue~ but this prinoiple oannot
be eduoed from it. And indeed, it has been eduoed from purP. prao
tioe, by trial and error, and moat prQoably unknowingly of the
7
oited optioal law. One can safely say that. in this oase the role
o~ museologioal "theory" is none. Por there exists no possibility
to establishtheoretioally the interdependenoe between the parame
ters ot a physioal natur6 /here parameters L/ and, tor example, the
preferenoes in the sphere of values /here the moat favourable illumi
nation from the aesthetio point of view/.·
There are also laws pertaining to different disciplines whioh
are not idealizational onos /faotual lawsl, and whioh, moreover, do
not express the relationships in variable qUlUltitios IWhioh wa.s true
about the oited optioal law/ AS they define non-gradational inter
relations. Suoh laws offer no pOAsibility of a v·sluing ohoice, at
th~ beat they oan be not applied. It is also often impossible to
"oheok" them in praotioe by trial and error, unless in laboratory
oonditions and 00 worth2eso samplos. Anyway, it one wants to aohieve
SODe deBired reBult,ohe must needs rp.alize those laws in ~ull. And
again, naturally, museologioal "theory" haa got nothing to say herp..
What, then, should be th~8 "theory"? It oould be either nothing but
a "oompendium" of praotioal knowledge, a ooll~otioo ot "prinoiples",
i.e. generalizations aoquired in the prooess of praotioal aotivity,
ao well as of indispensable information trom the realm of knowledge
ot other disoiplines with the "integration" always ooouring on the
plane ot prao~e; or 1t oould be a museum dootrine /or. my remarkB
to G. 3. Buroaw's paper/ uniting, and in this oenaeintegratlng,
var10ul prOOtllel ot museum work by setting them one superior goal:
the realisation of the so01al funotion of museums.
The present-day musaology seema to be in an impasse. The postu
late to oreate a muaeologioal "th~ory" as a link between praotioe
and the knowledge or various dloolpllnes in sImply an expression of
inoomprehension ot mUSeum praotioe. It 1s being oonoeived 8S It th5
mUseum were a faotory - meohanistioally, .ber~a8 We have to do here.,
with inoessant valuing ohoioes whloh no~heory" is abl~ to "1nt~-
gratew with any laws o~ solenoe. Tho most important thing is
p r a 0 t i 0 e oonsoious o~ its relationships wlth the knowledge
ot various disoiplines and ot th~ e sse n 0 e o~ what 18 being
done. Henoe the oonolusion: the main task ot museology ls the study
ot the essenOe ot the muaeua as a sooial and oultural phenomenon.
~08SIO - Brazil
1. The relation man objeot that, aooording to the author, mua~o
logy should deal with-distinguishos iteel~, in her opinion, by &
epeoial oontext dosoribed as "musealiso" and "l'enoeinte du mUGee".
However, the absenoe o~ an exaot deflnition of these notions makes
the definition ot museum taot worthless. The notions ot "admira-
tion", "re-vislon" and "re-leoture" are somehow oonneoted with this
taot, but they do not make the definition any more preoise either.
The attitudes o~ man towards the world desoribed by them ooour also
outside the museum, in liter&ture, art, philosophy, history, and
these two last mentioned are also taotors in oreation and evolution
ot any tradition. /Gf~ the definition ot museologloal tact in my
book./
2. The term "interdisolpllnariness" ls, to my mind, abused in mu
seolo81oa1 oontex~. This does not mean that 1nterdlsoip11narinesB
1. impossible in the muaeum; in oertain oases it may even be rea
lized. rhe faot itaelt, however, that in 80me tield ot activity
the knOWledge of other disoiplines is uoed does not determine an•
Interd1.o1pllnar, approach, but at most may lndloata a multldlso1-
plln&ry one. It, on the other hand, We look ~or necessary relation
ships !oausal, g8netl0, funotionall between remote phenomena uGuall~
investigated Indep~ndently of one another and by di!f~rent d1sQi-
pline', then and only then we have to do with an interd1Boiplinary
investigation. Sinoe tho author does no~ say anything on th~ 8ub
jeot of those neoessary relationships, one ~~y presume that ahe
9
uses the term "interdisoiplinarineos" 1n the OGnS8 of ~multldlsoi
plinariness" land thisappliea also to the papers of S. H. Nair and
I. Jahn/.
). The notion "system" has two meanings: 111 obJeotive - a oohesive
totality of things and relations oonneoting them, and /21 logioal,
ideal - a uniform, ordered aooording to rules, internally oohesive
and diam8mbered totality of knowledgo of a given disoipline. Speaking
about a system of knowledge /here auseology/ we oan only have in mind
a system in sense 12/. What the author demonstrates in her table
Ithe same i8 true about I. Jahn'8 tablel is system in sense 11/; a
system of things Imuseology and other disoiplines as oo-operating
elements of a funotional wholel, or, striotly speaking, a systemio
desoription of the struoture of muaeologioal disoipline in its re
lations with other disoiplines.
J. HODGE - Australia
1. Tho author bases his definition of muaeology on the notion at
innate "propensity of man to oolleot". Thia"propeosity", however,
manifests itself in sooiety in very different ways, refers to diffe
rent yalues. and is variously realized. It would be diffioult to
put an ~quation mark betwe~n the aooumulation of grain in an eleva
tor, or that ot gold in Saf~8, and the aooumulation of obJeots in
the mus@um, although in all theBe oaBes one 1s talking about ~oou
mulat1on. The author, tor hie part, does not define the speoifioity
ot museum aooumulation, a8 a result of whioh his definition of mu
seology i8 d~void of any diagnostio or oognitive value. It aleo
remains an open question whether th~ ~propen81ty of man to oollent~
is an innate quality, or on~ aoquired in the prooess of sooializa
tion, or, perhaps, an innate one but SOmehow 6ubJimated and rationa
lized in this prooess. The 8nawer to this question, however, oannot
be expeoted from museology; i't is the task ot oultural anthropology
10
and psyohology ~o give 1~.
2. One oannot agree wi~h ~ho pos~ula~e of ~he author ~t "museology
should not only Justify~he existenoe of ~UBeums but determine the
na~ure of museums· /p. 6/. The existenoe of museums does not requir~
any Justifioation by museology; they were orea~ed beoause ot a de
finite 800ial need, and their existenoe 1a juatified by ita reali
zation. Henoe, muaeology should help mUS6\lmS to reoognize this need,
as well as to realize it. This need is ooded in the museum itselt
/understood as a oultural phenomenon, and not as an edifioe or 1n
s~itution/ and constitutes its very essenoe whoso otudy should be
~he main task of museology. It is not museology #at determines the
nature of the museum; i~ is determined by sooial heeds that have
brough~ the museum 1n~o existenoe. It must be mentioned that these
needs must be understood very broadly within the oontext of meaningo
and values.
S. GoRAHSXHAR - India
The author s~ateB: /i/ ••.. ,all these disoiplines /i.e. seotions of
museum work - w. G./. otherwise independent, gain a different
con n 0 ~ a ~ io n in the prooess ot museum development and hanor
are grouped as museologioal.". and further on: /21 "The me~hodology
ot mU8eology thu8 oolleotively s y nth e s 1 ze s the methodo
logy of these disoiplines towards speoif1c n~eds of museums." /p.4/
~ar11er. ~he author explains ~ha~ /J/ " ••• the methodology of musp.-
ology1s the disoipline oonoerning the very purpose and organ1za-
~ion or Buoh an ao~lvity" Ip. 2/. IAII emphases mine - W. G.I
Assertion /1/ caUBeS thn question what thin different oonuotB
tion oons1sts In. It is answpred by assortion /2/: It oODsists in
the synthet1zat1on of methodologi~a ot various d1801p11n~8 /in the
meaning given in po1nt /1// "towarde specifio needs of museume"
whioh, aooordl):1g to aasertion /)/, osn mean investing them with e.
I!
oommon superior purpose P. In other worda, the said diaoiplioPB D
/In 'the lIIeaning given.1n poin't /1// acquire a superior purpose P
they originally did not posoesa by thelllselves, and enter into rela
t10nships in whioh theynorlllally do not ooour outside the IIIU6eum.
ThuB we obtain a definite relational system R that OBn be oonsidered
in two parallel aspeots: /1/ notional - BS aBe m 8 n tic syste~
S, and /2/ material - 8S a ~ uno t ion a 1 system F. The re
lationships in which disoiplines D ooour in system R, if it is under
stood a8 a system S, 'invest these disciplines as oultural units /in
the understanding of U. Boo/ with 8 new oonnotation they did not
possess earl1er, thanks to a new situation /oontext/ in which theY
normally do not ooour outside the museum. But system R, oonsidered
under another aspeot, is at the same time syatem,F in whioh disoi
plines D aotually oo-operate towards the aohievement o~ purpose P.
Co-operate, i.e. solidarily partioipate in mus~um work, and sinoe
they partioipate in it, they are, as partroipating, mueeum disoipli
nes /the author oalls them "museolog10al" - o~. point /1//, no lon
ger no matter what dlooiplincs they used to be outside th~ museum,
but preoisely museum disoiplinea. Th~y aoquire a sort o~ a n~w
oonnotation of "being muaeological", i.o. "oo-opp.rating ~o.ard8 a
common museum goal". And it is on this that this different connota
tion of whioh the author speaks in assertion /1/ seems to be baa~d.
It would be d1~fioult to say that it 1s oognit1vely a fruitful re
8ult as the only thing we learn from it 18 that what 18 related to
the museum can be desoribed as being Mmuseologioal" lor "of 8 mUB~um
nature"l. The quest10n r6mainB whether on~ oan really speak about
aynthetizing diaoiplinp.8 D by meana of the Il1t'Ithodology of mU8p.ology,
and in what ouch synthetiziug ohould conalet. One must agree, it
seems, that prooessea of work speoifio to eaoh of these disoiplines
oontinue to fol1011 in the framc:work ot -r.Ale lIlU8/lUm the oourse SPfIOl-
12
fie t:o t:hoir principles, although towards some superior purpose F
different: from those which could have ruled them outside the museum.
Those disciplines huve been. aftor all dravm into museum work exactly
because of their specificity as indispensable for the museum. Since
this spec:ii'icity remain·s intact, one could hardly speak here of any
synthesizing. The notion "to synthesize", therefore, can be interpreted
in two different way:) in the context in which the author used it
lassertion 1211, both of these interprotations are, however. unaccep-
table. To synthe!'lize rneiilns to invest disciplines D with a common sellse. , .
lassertion 1311 for which no methodology is suitable, or to outlino the
limits of the co-operation of disciplines, i.e. of un organizutional
iystem which is not the :business of museology but. of the discipline
known as organization theory.
July, 1983
Wroclaw - POland Wojciech Gluzinski
13
Zbynek Z StranskY, Brno - Czechoslovakia'
.METHODOLOGY OF MUSEOLOOY AND T.RAINING· OF PERSONNEL
COMMENTS
)
Comments on standpoints submitted by the :f"ollowing authors:BURCAW, GLUz:.r~SKI, GORAKSHKAR, HOmE, JAHN, MENSCH, POUW,
SCHOUTEN, NAIR, R~SSIO, SCHREINER levent. STRANSKt/
"From fairest creatures we desire increase,That. thereby beauty's rose might never die,But as the riper should' by time decease,His tender heir mlght bear his memory:"
w. Shakespeare
PROLOGUE
Standpoints to the given subject are very dif:f"erent. Butthis is natural.
We are from diff'"erent countries and continents, our backgrounds are different, we· live' in dif'fering environment, andconsequently many a time acquire dissimilar knowledge and experience. But in spite of the great distance in terms of spac.e and ideas, in spite of varying ideological attitud'e weshould look for the unity, unity of what is universal, unityof'" the species known as homo sapiens - using all accessibleways and means.
We should ace'ept there:fore the challenge pronounoed byBURCAW that it is good to discuss in spite of the di:ffer-ences.
APPROACH TO THE SUBJECT
III
In the submitted standpoillllt.s uncommon lrl'forts make themselves £elt to contribute in the most positive terms to the
clari£ication of the subject. Here we do not meet - 8S it isusual' at similar occ'ssions - only the expression of a common
14
opinion, but much deeper intellectual backgrounds are shown.Many authors pUblicize original approaches and a number o~
new notions. It would be desirable could these positive reatures not remain concealed only in these documents.
/2/The submitted syllabus of the suhject induces a number
o~' partial and complex questions. Consequently, many authorshave directed their attention only t.o these problems, whichhas resulted in~awing the gist of the subject out or account- the SUbject that shol,lld be di~cussed. by the two international commissions. Next time,we 8hould realize that the forum fo,a.: scientific discussion requires to lay down only such a subject that can be solved within the pe~tinent forum.
/3/Our attempt to solve scientifically the SUbject of metho
dology in museology and education of museum WJrkffrS - certainly another level is not concerned - connot be based only onthe museological domain and educational experience from museums. Here not the proper gnoseological problems or museologyare concerned, but the problems of scientific or non-scientific character of this potential branch are discussed. Therefore when using such ':'. tarms as e.g. method, methodology, interdisciplinary charactel", we should realize we .are on the levelof science of science and these terms,.can be used only withinthe context of their present scientific explication, evenfuoughwe cen ~use simultaneously our own approach.
/4/The subject of museology is not only of our c·oncern. It
is connected with the general development of society, but es-. pecially of proper science. Among ourselves we can repeat,perhaps one hundred times, museo~a1E's science. A resolution in this respect may be passed by the rCOM gener.al conference /this has actually happened/. By this, however, museology will not become 8 science.This;, may happen only after it
J5
begins to share by its own gnoseologieal contribution the developmentof scientific knowledge, and after the other branchesof' 8cien~e have begun to exploit the benefits of·museology.Therefore we should strive 1hat: our works in the area of' museo·_logy may not remain only on the level of perc'ept ion, pract icalhints and w~shfUl thinking, but that they are in the scientif'i~ respect on such a level that they can hold their ground ifSUbjected vo a matt,er-,of-fact criticism and if compared to theproduction of' other branches of science.
/5/When solving the problem of museology existence only so
me authors have gOiVien cons iderat ion to the proper hist orie:aldevelopment of' museology. When preferring the synchronous approach,the diachronic approach should not be left unnoticed.By becoming familiar with proper development Df' museologiGlalthinking we could' f'ind a wsy for solution o~ a number of theoretical problems. In this connection I would like to expressmy thanks to HODGE that in his standpoint he reminded us of'the design to publish some historical works .::on:.. museology under the common title· "Fundamenta museologic·a".
/6/We ha~e a lot of deficiencies in the methodological level
of' our work. One of' them is the fact that when solving partialproblems we do not commene:e with the critical analysis of thepRst attempts and when referring to any of the authors, notalways his standpoint is precisely interpreted. Many a time references and bibliography are missing, which is acceptable whenexpressing our own standpoints, but they should not be left out
in pUblications. This is not a formal requirement or efforts tocreate semblanc.e of' scientifia: charl:!cter. Also the ethical aspects are involved. More repeatedly we can see today the acceptanoe of' ideas of' other authors in the museological literature.This is only natural and desirable. But nll of us should adopt
the principle that always the Bource must 'be 'referred :to, even
though the text is not quoted lit er~llly.
16
PROBLEMS OF APPROACH
11/In agreement with the given syllabus most of authors hav,e
tried to approach the sUbject by determining their own conceptof' museology.
If compared with the articles we read in MuWoP 1/80, BURCAW, GLUZI~SKI, HODGE, JAHN, MENSCH et al. provided much adeeper and more serious reasoning of' the gnoseological intent-
) ion of' museology.' Nevertheless, there are great differences inindividual approaches. As ~egBrds the gnoseological intentionthe authors may be divided into two groups. ~he first group IA/
) is represented by BURCAW, GORAKSHKAR, and NAIR. They can seethe subjec't of mueeology in the museum. The second group IBI embraces GLUZI~SKI. HODGE. JANN, MENSCH et 81., and RctSSIO levent.STRINSId/. These authors are mostly oriented to unmat'erial objeets.
If comparing how these concepts of' museological knowledge
condition the forming of' museo1ogy,it should be stat'ed that theadvocates of group A d'o not find a suf'fic iently independentand specific area of knowledge. As a result, they take recourse to a great number of any oonceivable branches of' science andtechnology. Conversely, the approaches of authors in group Bpoint out the gnoseological areas that provide much better conditions f'or development of a specific scientific gnoseologicalactivity. In these cases the theoretical gn03eologioal leveland the application one are much more clearly differentiated,
thus liberating the museological gnoseological process frombranches and techniques that are naturally linked with the
function of museum as ao institution.
We would not like 1:"0 say the conception of authors in
group B is free ftom any problems. On the contrary, a more detailed analysis - which would be very desirable - could prove
the vague character o~ many standpoints. For instance, the
otherwise instructive article written by MENSCH, POUW, and
SCHOUTEN" which is based on the gnoseologic'al orientation 01'
museology in the SemlEl of' natural and cultural heritage, at·-
17
tempts also to apply semioti~B to the museological sphere,which has been ~ound bene~icial also with the other authora/ROHMEDER, POPOVIC - STRANSKY', SULEIV. But here it is rather8 one-sided aspect, just in the relation to the given sUbjector knowledge. Very use~ul is also the analysis o~ the so-called real /RM/ and postulated /PM/ museology given by GLUZI~
SKI who, however, oversees the general l~ws_gov.'e.rning the development o~ scientific knowledge. m1SSIO who uses "~ait mu-
l seal ou ~ait museologique" as a SUbject of gnoseologi~al intention o~ museology, applies the c'oncept of' fact 1;.00 intuitively, thus weakening her own theoretical explication.
/2/Aithough methodology is the central concept o~ our ap
proach, nobody - except ~or BURCAW /event. STRANSKt/- has speci~ied this concept. But as it is obvious ~rom the context,its explication is not qui.t'o· unambiguous in all cases.
When solving the issue of' methodology and museology theconception of' the gnoseological object is o~ basic signif'icanceo Consequently, BURCAW f'rom group A has arriwed at a conclusion there is no methodology o~ museology, and GORSHKAR andNAIR ha~ admitt~d the existence of several methodologies, butthey are the methodologies of' involved branches. Theref'oreneither in this case a special museological methodology eanbe re~erred to, not even in the meaning suggested by GORAKSHKAR, namely that it is a synthesis of' these methodologies.However, BURCAW-as one of a few-realizes this is the image ofthe present state that does not preclude the separlt.ion of' sucha speaial methodology in the future.
From the authors in group B it is GLUZIrtSKI who has avoided the main problem, which is largely due to the fact thathis concept of the so-called "M - factor" induces the conelusion that museology isp..am!!:lunder the semiotics of' culture, t.husadmitting only the use of extraneous methods. Conversely, HODGE
shows it is museology that must assume the decisive role andthat'.s why he has written "the museum is one manifestation ofmuseology". It is a pity he has not· drawn.' methodological con-
18
clusions from the leading. position of museology. JAHN hastried to bring her. ,theoret ical .conclusions up to this leveland has been right .. to 'underline the requirement of' deductionof specific museological methods,in agreement with the character of gnoseological intention of' museology. Thereforeshe says if there is "one museological knowledge" there mustalso be .. only one methodology of museology". Similerly, anidentical approach is ,shown by the team of' authors MENSCH,POUW, and SCHOUTEJ(. By their explanation ,muse,ology "covers-the whole area f'rom philosophical knowledge to manual skills:'.Similarly to their diff'erentiation of the gnoseological approachinto several areas, also "the methodology developed in thosefields" .by their assertiion.
/3/In spite of' tha di~erences found in determining the gno
seological intention of' museology, most ·of authors agree topostulate' the leading role of the system of' museology for thet'raining programme. According to BURCAW "task of museum training is to build in the student this museological base for themaking of' sound museographical decisions". This fundamentalrequirement of mastering museology is further specified by some authors, namely in the relation to the system of this branchas it has been justif'ied by them. GLUZI~SKI makes the requirement that the training programme involves both the theoreticalmuseology and the practical one. Similar c~nsiderations are made by the group of Dutch authors: who, however, alsO emphasize the requirement of' mastering the historic:al and social relations. In this respect, JAHN has advanced still f'urther andhas emphasized also the requirement of mastering the methodsof involved branches, but 6nly ~n' a general f'orm. In agreementwith concrete problems of securing the training of museum workers GORAKSHKAR and NAIR have brought this subject to practical conclusions, which obviously in many respects go beyondoUr subject. Nevertheless, I believe they are right to pointout the problems of training of' technical personnel with secondary school education, since neither this area may be leftunnoticed. It is just in the relation to these problems that
19
)
the role museoLogy is to pl~ should be realized, becausewithout it the 'l}Pecialized training would, be oIL _c;f,1he rrontactwith museum work.' The requirement of difrerentiated museological~8ining is also duly emphasized by MENSCH and his colleagues and so it is by JAHN.
The authors could be said to put aside, to a large extent, the methodological aspect and concentrated on, th~ projection of proper museological systems into the training programmes. On the one hand', they hav'e proved that such a training mustbe organized in compliance with the development of museology,but simultaneously its structure should correspond, to a certain extent, to that of mus'eology and its role in gnoseological and realization respects. Because of weakening of the purely methodologirrsl approach only some authors - e.g. HODGE
- have hinted at the part acted by paedagogical methods.
CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN
From the·abo~e characteristics some conclusions may be,drawn on which the discuasion in the two international commissions should concentrate. They are:
1. The nequired form of giving their standpoints to the pertinent subject has not allowed the authors to justify theirconcept and determine the structure of museology so as itwould be desirable from the methodological standpoint. Neverthelees, they have proved - in spite of ~'deep differences - there is a certain specific area of man's relation to the reality that should' "be studied scientifical
ly. Here not only the application of existing branches of
science and techniques is concerned, but also the formation of a new branch of science with its own gnoseologicalmission. Through scientific knowledge of this specific area not only its substance should be revealed, but by studying it it can be largely altered within the intentionsof social progress.
2. Proper problem o~ exempting museology 8S a possible branch
of ncience is such at present that the methodology o~ mu-
20
I
..eology understood as a "system of methods" /BURCAW/ or a"theory of methods" /STRANSKf/ can be talked about as a justifiable postulate but not as a fact.
3. 'lhe mus·e.doi9-a;!i. education a.annot be realized and shaped out ofthe conta~t, with museology and its development. Only throughmuseo10gy it c.an att.ain such a level that it is not only onthe ~Qvel of acquiring experience and knowledge but that itmay become a tool for creation of the real museologica1 pro
:fession that is correspondiingly difrerentiated.
4. The requirement that the museologi;.:liJ educltion.:isl:ased cnJheIWttemporary museo10gy leads to difrerentiation of this education,in agreement with the gnoseo10gical levels of museo10gy andits applications. However, this does not mean the structureof museology can be id~ntified with that of training programmes. There is A pronounce·d d'ifference between the gnoseological proeess and the traning process, which should be fully expressed also in the training programmes of museology.
5. As mentioned by BURCAW, "it is difficult to conceive of nonmuseo1ogists teaching museology, and of non-museum prOfessionals creating museum professionals". Therefore :favourable conditions should be created in ord~r that the training centresbecome,01't-e-iiternationa1 scale, also the centres of museo1ogic.al work and that through positive museologiea1 activitieswithin the training programme the museo10gical production is
extended and 10~ensi:fied."At the same time, there should besuccessively applied the requirement of graduation in museolo
gy as the precondition for employment of university graduates
and technical workers with secondary school education in museums.
6. When emphasizing the closest cooperation between theoretical
and educational-muaeological aspects neither the paedagogical-didactic requirements must. be overlooked, since they .involvetheir specific problems related to the structure and the forms
of the museological and museog~8phic&1 education.
21
EP]LOGUE
The above ar~icles are full of c~nvietion that museologyis today of primary importanc.e f'or functioning of museums, especially under the present very complicated conditions forthe f'uture development of' mankind.
If the newly conceived exhibition f'acilities - sometimeseven called museums - built with the' maximum exploitation ofthe mass communication med'ia engage today a wide attention,it results in a continuously decreasing social interest shownin museum facilities of' traditional character. This trend cannot be confronted by abandoning themuseum~positiona!and adopting the attractive slogan of ant i m Ul se u.. m, but on thecontrary we should take the road of stUdying proper specificity and social signif'icanee o~ these f'acilities or briefly:
m use 0 log i sat i. 0 n of the museum work.
It is of vital importan~e for the museums that the matterof' museology is not understood as a narrowly specialized. problem. The ICOM general conference held ~n London this yearshould contribute to the r.ealization of' the :fact that museology must. become tthe major 11.001 in the development of museumaff'airs and the programme content of ICOM. The lCOM leadingofficials should the~ef'ore widely support further ICOFOM activities and contribute to MuWoP becoming an official museologic~l platf'orm, where not only the presence, but especiallythe future of museums and their role in the society should bedecided.
June, 1983Brno - Czechoslovakia Zbynek Z Stransky
•22
Pierre Mayrand, Montreal- Canada
LES DEFIS DE L'ECOMUSEE I UN CAS, CELlII DE LA .HAUTE-BEAUCE
L'ecomusee de la Haute-Beauce au Quebec,
BASIC PAPER
En juillet 19'/9 naisnait Ie Musee et c:entre regional d' inter
pretation de la Haute-Beauce, embryon du futur ecomusee. Le territoire de la Haute-Beauce se situe aux confins sud-ouest de la
sous-region de Quebec, la Beauce, reputee pour la richesse de ses
traditions ornles. Car.act~risee par son ~16vation et p~r ses vues
6tendues que l'on decouvre des villages sommet, situes sur despro~ontoires rocheux, heritages des glaciations millenaires qui,
ont fa90nne Ie plateau appalachien, la Haute-Dcauce s'i~pose d'cmblee au vlsiteur qui l'aborde de l'Est ou de l'Ouest. Bornee parla riviere La Chaudiere, corridor traditionnel d'echanees, par laregion voisine de l'Estrie, aux caracteristiques loyalistes, heri
tage des migrations americaines, par les crateres miniers au Nord,enfin par la frontier.e americaine au SUd, la Haute-DeBuce emergc
comme un monument naturel dont Ie centre geoeraphique est constitup.par les Monts Saint-Seb~stien, blocs granitiques dominant la rl;gion
a huit cent metres.
5i la Haute-Beauce presente des caracteristiques aussi marquees,
il n'en dp.meure pas moins qu'elle :rut ignoree par sa population, e1:
qu'elle fut laissee pour compte par les administrations. Commentexpliquer, par consequent, l'eveil soudain d'une population a~ro
forestiere au potentiel illimite de ses ressollrces humaines et deson environnement, Ie role joue par l'ccomusee dans les processus
de prise de conscience active se traduisant par des gestes d'une
grande qualite museolo~ique ?
L'exemple de Napoleon Bolduc.
Artisan-menuisier, fils de cultivateur, Napoleon Bolduc forme
un univer5 imaginaire fonde sur ses souvenirs d'enfance de meme
que sur la creativite qui animait les hnuts beaucerons lars de lacolonisation rie la region, ii'la fin du sii~cIe dernier. II entre!J'"end,
en 1950, de meublp.r son Grenier d'objets caracteristiques de la
23
l
civilisation materie~le et spirituelle du plateau. Illes scenarisedans des arrangements qui tiennent a la fois du collectionneur etdu museologue, tentant d'organiser nans un espace restreint toutesles composantes de la vie d'autrefois. II s'en degage une vision dela societe rurale et un choix qui fait de Napoleon Bolduc un ethnologue sans Ie savoir.
La notoriete populaire du » Musee aux mille antiquites » etantdevenue telle qu'il ne put seul, avec >;on epouse, repondre a lapression grandissante des visitAurs, dd~u par ses demarches auprisdes autorites gouve~nementales At par l'elitisme qui presidait aujugeme"1t des experts sur la » valeur» Gcientifique de sa colle,ction,en butte a l'incomprehension de sa propre communaute, il fera confiance, en 19'/8, a des personlles qui lui offrirent en toute amitiecie tenter une experience inusitee dont les r";sultats pourraientrepondre a ses attentes les plus cheres, c'est a dire Ie maintiensde la collection clans sa region natale, la reconnaissance de son
travail.
L'embryon d'un ecomusee.
Les ecomusees etaient connus au Canada par une poignee de professionnels travaillant dans les agences gouvernementales, notamenta Pares Canada. De nombreuh sejours d' etude en France avaient per:nisde faire circuler dans un milieu restreint les idees et les pratique~
mises de l'avant par Georges-Henri Riviere et par l'Ecomusee duCreuzot-Montceau-les-Mines, pour lesquels ces adeptes vouaient unculte inconditionnel, sans reussir cependant a mettre en oeuvreces principes au Quebec.
La nouvelle definition de la culture donnee par la POlitigue 9uebecoise de develoEpement culturel, en 1978, les principes d'action
~nonC~B par la D~claration qudbecoise sur Ie tourisme culturel.les positions defendues par Ie gouvernement du Quebec dans Iedocument Le musee du Quebec en devenir, Concept museoloeigue (1979),
de meme que les acquis de l'animation culturelle en re6ion depuis
vinet ans, la crise des musees qui commen9ait a roindre, la publi~p
tion par Ie Secretariat a l' am6nagement et a la d<-5centralisation du
24
)
)
fascicule La d~centralisationl Une perspective communautairenouvelle, contribueront grandement a cr~er une conjoncture favorable a l'eclosion de l'ecomusee de la Haute-Beauce, vasteentreprise de planification et d'education populaire.
Les accords harmonieux d'un ecom~~ee communautaire.-.. "
Apres un an de pre-animation les concepteurs-promoteurs duprojet evaluent favorablement les chances d'implantation aupresdes haut.-beaucerons d'un musee-territoire, dont l'ammorce seraitIe centre d'interpretation. et dont l'aboutissant serait l'ecomusee.lIs adoptent un plan de developpement quinquennal ( 19(9-198) )repondant au processus illustre par Ie modele de trianeulationqu'ils imaginent, ayant a son sommet l'interpretation dent decoulent les etapes de territorialisation, d'ecomusee, mus parles principes de se~sibilisation, 0e creation et de retroaction.L'hypothese fut realisee dans tous ses points par la creation, en1979, du Musee et centre regional d'interpretation de la HauteBeauce; dans un presbytere dominant la region. la creation d'outilsde sensibilisation a la reeion ( la collection. les murales,l'exposition thematique .. Et DieQ crea la Haute-Beauce .. ), lacreation. en 1980, de la premiere ante nne " Le musee chez nous,par tous, pour tous n la division du territoire en cinq zonescaracteristiques ( Vallons, Cretes, Grand Lac, Coeur, ~rable )
aux noms evocateurs tels que les " Paysages qui chantent ", lesn Hauts lieux de la colonisation n, la formation d'un co:nite desusagers ( Le Recroupement ) reunissant les representants elus destrei7.e villages, l'integration structure lIe des d~leeues de zonea la structure decisionnelle du centre de services (198J), lacreation d'un Laboratoire d'experimentation ctinactique en milieurural avec ses trois volets op6rationnels ( Education de masse,education poplitique, intervention en milieu scolaire ), l'ins
titution d'un cours de formation en museologie populaire ( 260personnes formees ) qui devait produire trois expositions collec
tives, la realisation d 'un collectif de trei:>.e villages, HauteBeauce creatrice, qui sera determinante pour l'implantationrnaterielle et sociale de l'ecomusee dent Ie vocable est officiellement adopte en 198J, La parfaite synchronisation des operations
aura permis Ie passage sans heurts du musee a l'ecornusee dans Ie
25
l
l
respect de son evolution naturelle et de son acceptation
progressive par une population entiere, selon Ie principe1'onrlamental que l'ecomusee n'est pas une fin en soi, qu'ilse defitif comme objectif a atteindre. Ayant franchi h3.rmonieusementsa premiere phase, l'ecomusee parait entrerdans la rleuxieme phase rle son evolution. La realisation dela Maison des F,ens de St-Hilaire, sous centre d'interprcitation rle la vie et de l'environnement d'un villaEe des Cretes.entierement congu, realise et gere par sa population usagere.exemple 1'rappant des savoir 1'aire museologiques d'une population apparemment non CJuali1'iee, laisse entrevoir des perspectives entierement nouvelles pour l'ecomusee, un enracinnemment plus vivant encore d'un mileu dans son environnementa vivre.
Les de1';.s de I' avenir.
Une 1'ois atteinte la " musealisation " -lv terri toirepar la participat~on active des citoyens a la realisation de gestes museologiques, et par la transmutation deleurs savoir i'aire traditionnels en en visions elargies
de leur developpement par la cooperation, l'ecomusee devrat'il s'enfermer dans son systeme acheve ou bien devra-t'illaisser la place a des programmes d'une toute autre nature?
Les acquis organi sationnels de I' ,komusee, la tres haute
conscience de leur savoir faire nouvellement acquis par lesusagers des treize villages, la cohesion sociale reelle quise degage de l' experience, :lans une population autre1'oisdivisee, i8018e, sont des iktruments ideaux pour la formationd'une nouvelle etape qui pourrait trans~resser des objecti1's
exclusivement culturels et museaux, soit celle de l'amenaeeme~
social et physique du territoire dont le processus est
auto~ere.
Afin d'en explorer les possibilites l'ecomusee travailleactuellement a mettre en place un C~ntre de recherche ·popu
laire en ecomuseologie appliquee au territoire, dont les
objectifs s'apparentent a l'universite populaire. Le centre,
qui integre les structures existentes,aura pour mission de
se pencher, en collaboration avec le Centre local de services
26
)
communautaires (CISC) qui recouvre le meme territoire, sur des
options fondamentales de developpement.
Le maintiens des caracteristiques communautaires de cette categorie .d'ecomusees, la preservation de son role actif, de memeque l'etablissement de liens permanents avec la communaute museale
internationale figurent parmi les enjeux importants de l'entreprise-
Juillet 1983Montreal - Canada Pierre Mayrand
27
Zbynik Z StranskY, Brno - Czechoslovakia
MUSEUM - TERRITORY - SOCIETY
COMMENTS
Comments on articl.es submitted by' the following authors:COLLLN, DESVALEES, HAAK, SCHNEIDER, TERRADAS, VEILLARD levent.STRANSJdI
O~ In spite of the fact. there was giv.en a syllabus for ela-boration of the giv.'ensubject, most of authors used their ownexplication of the standpoint quite freely. In some cases itis understandable' because of the prevailing descriptiv.e-information character' ICOLLIN" HAAK, VEILLARD/.
In my opinion the gist, of the matter has been best approached by DESVALLEES and SCHNEIDER, whereas TERRADES has CDrtrib~.ed 1P 1m clarif'i:ation ri"SOIJi! l:Bse ecdogic:a1 issues. In my paper Ihave tried to express the given problems in their comprehensive· character.
1. If c'omparing the submltt.ed articles and authors' inter-pretation of the term "ecomuseum", event. general conception01 the specific approach to the reality, then it is obviousthat the abov,e term evokes quite different intellectual processes.Most pronounced is thisdiff'erence between the approaches of SCHNEIDER and HAAK.
It 1S only natural that the given subject - not beingclearly ;'unambiguous because of its terse form - can beapproached di:ff"er.ll.ntly. I clearly understand what HAAK writesabout. But I believe that the.' deep·. differences in the approachof' individual authors not only express the versatility of thegiven SUbject, but essentially they can be referred to majormisunderstanding or lack of understanding.
A group of authors proceeding from the concept of ecomuseum,as arriv-ed at and realized in practice by G.ll.RIVIERE,is naturally bound to that conception and either they onlygive their comments or provide an example of its realization.
Even though the concept of ecomuseum has managed to penetratea number of countries, then it deeply rooted especially in the
28
plac::es with favourable conditions. This concept has CQme. in-10 bang tBnks 1D the e:rfort.s of RIVIERE to provide a new approach to the concrete natural-social and monument-museumproblems, which have not been solved in the examined areasor rather not solved satisfactorily.
The practical examples presented by COLLIN and VEILLARD have proved the viability and functionality of this concept. But without the. necessary generalization one cannot deduce a new type of museum from the above assertions.
This has certainly bean realized" by many authors and·therefore in a number of articles on the problem of ecomuseumwe aan see· the attempts to specify the characteristic features of such a museum. For instanc.e, DESVALEES refers to theso-called definition formulated by RIVIERE in 1978. But it isjust in the relation to· this characteristic idea of ecomuseumthat it can be pro~ed that this definition is not unambiguous.There c:ontinuES to predbminate the practical knowledge over thereal generalization that would justify the statement that ecomuseum is in fact: a new type of museum.
The problems of a new type make themselves felt stillmore markedly if also the type of regional museums is takeninto account, especially the so-called "Heimatmuseum" that wasoriginated in the second half of the 19th century and at thebeginning of the 20th century in Germany and the then AustroHungary. Obviously, this type can be found still today.
In many standpoints on ecomuseums there apprear the attempts - as is also the case of COLLIN's conclusion - to confront the ecomuseum with the traditional museum that is pre
sented 88 8n institution exclusively focused on the past, whereas the ecomuseum '..: directly del!lllJ with the present needsof the place t CI> whilllh' it, refers •.,
Finally, the concept of ecomuseum covers a variety offunctions that certainly emanate especially from concrete re
quirements of the place, while some essential functions ofthe museum are missing.
)
l1spitQ)\ of them only tersely outlined problems, :t. take it especially SCHNEIDER and TERRADAS are right when theytry to include the problem of ecomuseums in wider and todayvery urgent ecological relations. In my opinion, it is onlythrough ecology and from the standpoint of ecology that thenecessary theoretical basis can be found for the solution ofthese problems.
2. Therefore when confronting the sUbmitt~d articles Ibeliev.e tha~ SCHNEIDER-and to a certain extent also my paperI took the liberty t9 submit - indicate the whole breadth inwhich the problem should have been solved.
I would not like to arouse an impression I wish to underestimate the impa~'t of ~.oncret.e results on the establishment of museums of this type or to weaken the contributionRIVIERE has made when pushing forward' such a new orientationof the museum wp,rk. Just the opposite is tr~e. By emphasizingthe wide scientific basis, i.e. ecological and museological,these efforts for ecomuseums should be brought to appropriate relations, and proper meaning and significance of so conceived museum should be demonstrated.
~ beli'eve it is the role of the seminar organized onthis subjea~ to strengthen the general ecological orientation of' museums through it. In my opinion this goal cannot beachieved by simple preference given to ecomuseums, but by following the road of' pronounced ecological orientation of thewhole museum world as I have tried to explain.
~he ecological orientation of a museum cannot be onlythe matt,er of direct connecction of' this institution with natural and living environments,and popularization 0f ecological sUbje~ts, but it should permeate the whole profile ofsuch a museum, i.e. especially its COllection-forming orientation.1 E here:"fuet{~~or obstacles are encountered. Unless wesuceeed in establishing the ecologically oriented collectionsystems, then we shall hardly succeed in developing in thisspirit the presentation, cultural, and educational activities,if' we want that these facilities remain also in the future institutions wilh a muswmcharacter.
30
)
3. Many documents and examples can be found in museumsthat are related to the ecological subject. This orientation may be ~ully justified by its high social urge. This ispossible and for concentration of information on this orientation of museum activities it. is also userul. However, if wewant to proeeed and espe~ially improve the standard of theecologioal orientation of museums, then we must get to thenecessary generalizing, theoretical basis. in agreement withthe latest knowledge of the contemporary science. The seminarprovides a great opportunity to do so.
June, 1983Brno - Czechoslovakia Zbynek Z Stransky
31