Documenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film,
Our Museum潘夢斐*

Mengfei PAN

1．INTRODUCTION
The museum exists on multiple levels. In(2008; sequel in 2014) and National Gallery

addition to policies, legislations, physical(2014) and contextual studies of the filmmaking

buildings, and academic discourse, the museum

process, it finds that previous theories fail tois also presented in various kinds of media

grasp the precise museum image in theseproducts. This research focuses on the museum

documentary films. By examining whether Our

in the documentary film, Our Museum (2002)

Museum coheres with previous studies on film-

directed by Yasushi Kishimoto. It argues thatworld museums, this paper argues that rather

this work plays a role in documenting thethan deifying or demonizing museums, it

museum, and more importantly, mediating theachieves constructing the museum as a place inoften-contrasting museum images that various

which varying personal thoughts are instilled.

societal players tend to construct. It provides a

By adopting the form of film, a vehicle

platform to raise questions about the raison

potentially capable of reaching many, andd'être of the museum by interweaving personalenriching the narrative by giving voice tomemories and visions with the registeredselected groups of people, Our Museum creates

histories of institutions and countries.

a polyphonic space rather than inclining

This research adopts an interdisciplinary

towards any of the imageries from academia,

approach to fill the gap between film studies

institutions, and popular media products. It

and museum studies. Through textual analysis

serves as a tool to stage a negotiated museumof O u r M u s e u m (2002) and a few otherimage on screen and invites further discussions.

examples including The New Rijksmuseum* P
 h.D. student, ITASIA Course, Prof. YOSHIMI Shunya Laboratory, Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies,
The University of Tokyo
キーワード：media representation of museums, museum in documentary films, museums in Japan, museum studies69

2．PREVIOUS STUDIES IN FILM STUDIES AND MUSEUM STUDIESPrevious research offers insights into museum

finding is that the museum in films often

representations in films and the relationship

implies class distinctions, or provides the

between popular culture and museums. Studies

backdrop for strange people and tensions. Thisthat shed light on the former include Kimberly

museum image in films reveals a stark contrast

Louagie’s and Suzanne Oberhardt’s studies onwith the institutional discourse, uttered byAmerican films between the mid-1980s andmuseums themselves, that the museum is formid-1990s (Louagie 1996; Oberhardt 2000) andevery one. Examining thirty-three American

Steven Jacobs’ research on Alfred Hitchcock’s

films between 1985 and 1995, Louagie comes toworks (2006; 2009). Previous studies on thethe conclusion that museums are seen as

relationship between popular culture and“treasure houses filled with untouchable

museums include those by Kevin Moore (1997)

objects”“ and“awesome gallery spaces full ofand Mariko Murata (2013 & 2014).

well-educated museum patrons”(1996, 48). On
the other hand, Jacobs concludes from an

1) Perspectives from film studies

analysis of a total number of seventy-four films

Research by Louagie, Jacobs, and Oberhardtthat in addition to artists and connoisseurs,

pays particular attention to the museum image

museums in films often provide a kind of1

in films. In spite of their varying researchharbour for tourists, snobs, dandies, iconoclasts,

objectives, the three scholars share in theirthieves, secret lovers, spies and haunted ormain approach, textual analysis of the films.

cursed characters (2009, 297). Arguably

Louagie, a museum curator, looks foraddressing the findings by Louagie and Jacobs,

stereotypical images of museums in films andthrough detailed analysis of five Hollywood

expects to see how museums can learn fromfilms, Oberhardt identifies a stereotypicalfilms (1996). From an architectural history andbinary that separates the fictional characters

film studies perspective, Jacobs attempts tointo“insiders”and“outsiders”of the museum

discern how museum buildings and monuments(2000). The former are assumed to be those

appear in films (2006; 2009). Oberhardt

with social approval and acceptance, and theexamines how these films have the potential tolatter, graceless and evil (ibid.). These studies

offer insights for art educators (2000).

discern that the museum often serves as a

Through textual analysis, the three scholars
deconstruct the museum image into
architecture, artifacts, and people. A shared

70

bizarre place that distinguishes certain groupsof people into the elite or the weird.
Despite that this finding is convincing from東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№92

the authors’ meticulous analysis, two main

provides insights into the scholarly

problems remain. One is that they fail tointerpretation of the encounter between

provide a rationale for the selection of films.

museums and popular or media cultures.

Oberhardt admits that her selection of theMuseum Studies as a discipline has beentarget films is random (2000, 55). Discussionschanging in the past three or four decades andover the particularity of the selected films

has become increasingly interdisciplinary (Panacross cultures or film genres remain2015). This paper adopts a broad definition ofunderdeveloped. For example, whether the“Museum Studies”and takes research with

Hollywood films between the mid-1980s andmuseums as the analysis target as Museum

mid-1990s, Hitchcock’s works, documentary

Studies. Kevin Moore (1997) and Mariko Murata

films, and films produced in different countries(2013 & 2014) are among the scholars who

appropriate museums in different/similar ways

study the contemporary intimacy between

is a question worth exploring.

museums and popular culture since the 1980s.

A lack of contextual analysis can also be

Although Moore and Murata refer to

identified. None of the three scholars’ researchscholarship in cultural studies and media

encompasses a study of the filmmaking process.

studies, their main subjects are museums andThey make attempts to connect film analysis

are assumed to be part of Museum Studies

with museum studies, i.e. the New Museology

literature.

framework and Tony Bennett’s criticism of

Moore, curator of the National Football

museums’ bourgeois exclusivity (Jacob 2009,

Museum in Preston, U.K., supports museums’

304; Bennett 1995, 25-33; Oberhardt 2000, 72-74).

incorporation of popular culture as a suitable

However this disparity in museum image is notand necessary subject matter (1997). Employing

sufficiently theorized. An inspection of thecultural studies theories to re-evaluate popular

contexts including film production may lead toculture, or“non-authentic and spurious”objects,

what shapes the difference in comprehension ofand his experience in the U.K., Moore ismuseums between the academic, institutional

convinced of the democratic potential of

discourses, and film-world representation. This

popular culture (Moore 1997; Brabazon 2006).

paper aims to fill the gap by examining one

He contends that popular culture’s presence indocumentary film and incorporating analysis ofmuseums provides a political battleground to

the filmmaking context.

instigate debates over social class andcompeting ideology (Moore 1997, 78). He also

2) A perspective from museum studies

points out two ways to democratize museums:

Another perspective from museum studies

one to offer a more accessible interpretation ofDocumenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum

71high culture, and the other to“broaden thehistorical factors— the strong connection

subject matter to include culture and history of

between early public museums and industry

all members of society”(1997, vii).

promotion agendas in the Meiji period,

Following Moore’s method and optimistic

prevalent museum-like spaces in department

vision towards museums’ incorporation of

stores, and the long-established practice of

popular culture, Murata mainly focuses on theblockbuster-type exhibitions sponsored bycase of Japan. By analyzing the phenomenon ofmedia companies

increasing institutionalization of popular

museum scene in this country. Rather thancultures such as manga, films, music, and sports

serving a strong democratization agenda asas museum content, Murata indicates that this

Moore suggests, museums in Japan from thetrend reflects the expansion of museums to

beginning have their life in popular culture, andinclude those previously regarded as marginal

mass media has been a close partner of(2014, 244-50). A few indigenous features ofmuseums. Oberhardt’s argument that the art

museums in Japan can account for themuseum’s life in popular culture has previously

phenomenon of popularization of museum

been ignored and/or misconstrued may be true

experience, or the tendency of museums toin academia but loses some of its validity in the

become more ready for consumption throughcultural life of Japan (2000, 2).

— delineate a distinct

media products (Murata 2013; Pan 2014). Three

3．MECHANICS OF MUSEUM IMAGE CONSTRUCTION
Prior theories in museum studies reveal thatand institutional discourses, to pave ways forthe intimacy between popular culture andthe later discussions on museums inmuseums has political democratic potential anddocumentary films.

indigenous Japanese reasons. Film studies

This paper develops a new model based on

however demonstrate a disparity in the

Oberhardt’s pedagogy paradigm. Oberhardt

museum image between one established in the

proposes a four-quadrant model to understandfilm world, mysterious and exclusive, and thatthe museum image (Fig. 1). The four frames

advocated by museum institutions, democratic

are Art History, New Museology, Popularand open to all. This part explores one

Culture, and Pedagogy that re-negotiates theremaining task left by Louagie, Jacobs, andformer three frames. This model is helpful in

Oberhardt, as discussed earlier: the under-

elucidating the divides in art historicaltheorized chasm between the popular, academic

discourse and popular culture that deify

72

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№92

museums, and the New Museology thatmuseum, “it becomes sacred; represents

demonizes museums. The vertical axis suggests

sensual romantic love; is elitist in an inclusive

a continuum from the traditional home of theway because of its aspirational and inspirational

museum, the Academy, to the territory ofrole; and has a moral and authoritative voice”

popular culture. The horizontal axis indicates a(2000, 5-6). When people demonize the museum,

more “emotive” continuum, showing how“it becomes profane; eroticizes and objectifies

people feel about museums, from deifying them

the body; is elitist in a way that is exclusive;

to demonizing them. With more explanations

and through its authoritarian profile as anover the “deify/demonize” dichotomy,

agent of oppression”(ibid.).

Oberhardt proposes that when people deify theFig.1.

Pedagogy frame penetrating the three frames (Oberhardt 2000, 7).
Frame 1: Art historical; Frame 2: New Museology; Frame 3: Popular culture;
Frame 4: Pedagogy, process of renegotiation between the three former frames.

Although Oberhardt’s diagram offers insights

by the directors and curators, reveals the self-

into the disparities, it also suffers from three

image held by the museums, demonstrates thelimitations. First, Oberhardt overlooks theattitude of the major patron, usually themuseum institutions’ voice that Louagie points

government, and pragmatically informs theout. She argues that the voice of the museum

museum’s daily practice. It seems that rather

itself is framed in the ways other voices talk itthan occupying one specific zone, theinto being (2000, 3). Still the institutional

institutional is advocated to turn itself into thediscourse, publicized in official papers and given

penetrative pedagogy frame.

Documenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum73

Oberhardt’s model also generalizes the

Examples include those films examined byacademic discourse of Museum Studies, only

Louagie, Oberhardt, and Jacobs and a few

referencing to New Museology. Rather thanothers such as the novel The Catcher in the

being unified, Museum Studies scholarship can

Rye by J. D. Salinger (1951), folk song Museum

be divided into two in terms of theirby Donovan (1966), music animation

perspective: the critical and the optimistic. To

Metropolitan Museum of Art by NHK (Japan’s

be more explicit, the strand of the literaturenational public broadcasting organization)

she examines takes a critical perspective. The

Minna no uta Program (Song of Every One)

best examples are Pierre Bourdieu’s acute(1985) in which the museum is imagined as a

critique of art gallery’s elitism (Bourdieu andplace of mysteries, adventure, and romantic

Darbel 1969; Bourdieu 1984) and Tony Bennett’s

encounters (Pan 2013).

theory articulating modern public museums’

As Figure 2 shows, another three forces

social function as disciplinary apparatus (1995).

stretch the museum image towards different

However an opposite and more positive opinion

directions. One is the institutional discourse andcan also be identified inside academia. These

optimistic museum studies that view the

optimistic works include Kevin Moore’s andmuseum as a democratic place, accommodating

those who believe in museums’ post-colonial

all cultures and all people. Also optimistically,and democratic potential, i.e. James Clifford’s

however from a different standing point, thetheory of“museums as contact zones”(Clifford

discourse by the artist groups can be identified.

1997; Boast 2011).

They believe in the special identity of the

A new model can be proposed to plot themuseum space and see museums as anvarying forces that tend to develop a certain

important place for displaying artworks andkind of museum image (Fig. 2). Rather thanpromoting creative collaborations. A third force

adopting the binary of deifying or demonizing,is by cultural studies and critical museum

it draws demarcations between the sectors,

studies scholarship that questions the museum.

popular media, artists, cultural studies andIt pays attention to the politics of museum

critical museum studies, and institutional

space and often criticizes museum elitisms,

discourse. It finds that the popular media

serving the interest of a particular social group.

projects its imagination towards museums.

74

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№92

Fig.2.

Mechanics of museum image construction under four major forces.

This diagram aims to offer an entire picture

forces. The categorization does not aim to poseof the post-New-Museology frame thatrigid boundaries and exceptions exist. For

Oberhardt suggests, to scrutinize not throughexample, the Dadaists are skeptical artists who“texts displayed by museums but rather

challenge the authoritarian status of the art

through how the museum itself is represented

museum. This brings us to the question of how

and talked about in contemporary society”by

the documentary film, Our Museum, can bevarious sectors (2000, 9). It reveals that theplaced in or challenge this model.

museum imagery diverges under four varying

4．CASE STUDY OF OUR MUSEUM
1) Reasons for choosing Our Museum

As Bill Nichols argues, the definition of

Our Museum (2002) is a fifty-seven-minute“documentary film” can be established in

documentary film produced by a Japanesecontrast to fiction, experimental, and avant-director, Yasushi Kishimoto (1961-). The reason

garde films (2001, 20). He also suggests four

for selecting a documentary film in Japan is toangles, institution, practitioner, texts (films andinvestigate whether the diagram can still

videos), and audience, to examine whether aremain valid for a film genre disparate fromwork can be defined as a documentary film

the entertainment and avant-garde film (i.e.

(2001). Our Museum serves as a good example

Hitchcock’s and Hollywood films) and whetherof a documentary film. From the perspective ofJapanese indigenous characteristics underlie

the“practitioner”and“audience”, it can be

the film productions and representations.

categorized as a documentary film. Its director,

Documenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum

75Kishimoto, has established his career as an“artseveral documentary film festivals with

documenter”, or more precisely, documentarianaudiences of documentaries (Fig. 3). During an

specializing in shooting art related subject

interview with the author, Kishimoto also

2

matters. This work has been screened at

identifies this work as a documentary (2016).

Fig.3：Past public screening of Our Museum.
2003

The 21th International Festival of Films on Art in Montreal;
remo (record, expression and medium organization) in Osaka;

2004

Friend of Museum Event at Hyogo Prefectural Museum of Art;BankART 1929 Yokohama;

2005

Research Institute for Digital Media and Content, Keio University at Hamanako International
Brain Centre;
As part of exhibitions, Museums for a New Millennium: Concepts Projects Buildings, andKazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa / SANAA, at 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art,
Kanazawa;

2006

Art Documentary Week at Kyoto Cinema;
ARCUS STUDIO (Residency for Artists, Experiments for Local, Moriya, Ibaraki);

2015

At Kyoto Minami-Kaikan as part of PARASOPHIA, Kyoto International Festival of Contemporary
CultureThis work is also important considering therecognition, shifting from a “gallerist” tostatus of the film director in Japan and its“documentary director”, with his works

independent nature. Kishimoto is a leading

entering renowned documentary film festivals,

figure in the field of art documentation bye.g. The Biennale internationale du film sur l'art

moving image in Japan. From both Kishimoto’s(BIFA) held by the Pompidou Centre.

own words and media reports, Kishimoto is theWinning credits from both within Japan andfirst among a limited number of professionals

overseas, Kishimoto is now among the mostwho dedicate themselves to documenting

important filmmakers in the art scene in Japan.

contemporary art by videos and films in JapanA second reason is that Our Museum is one(Ohashi 1997; Kyoto Keizai Shimbun 1998).

early work that features museums and shows

Originally a company employee, Kishimoto quit

independence from the museum institutions.

his job and started a gallery called Ufer in

From a list of works with documentary

Kyoto in 1992 and self-trained himself as an art

character featuring museums (Fig. 4), Our

documentarian video-taping young artists’ art

M u s e u m is one of the early works that

production process in Kyoto. Tracing the media

anticipate a growing number of documentary

reports in newspapers between 1994 and 2004,

projects since the beginning of the twenty-first

we can find that he gradually gained

century.

76

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№92

Fig.4：List of selected works with documentary character featuring museums.
1976

NHK Educational Program, Nichiyo Bijutsukan (Sunday Art Museum)2002

Our Museum (directed by Yasushi Kishimoto);

2007

BBC Wales, TV documentary series, The Museum (featuring The British Museum);20082009

Photography project titled as Smotritelnitsy (women who watch), or Guardians in English by
Andy Freeberg at museums in Russia;

2010

The New Rijksmuseum, a Sequel in 2014 (directed by Oeke Hoogendijk);

2013

The Vatican Museums 3D (directed by Marco Pianigiani);

2014

The Great Museum (directed by Johannes Holzhausen, featuring Kunsthistorisches Museum in
Vienna;National Gallery (directed by Frederick Wiseman, featuring The National Gallery, London);Cathedrals of Culture, an omnibus documentary (Pompidou Centre episode directed by Karim
Ainouz);

2015

Francofonia: Le Louvre Under German Occupation (directed by Alexander Sokurov);

2016

Masters in Forbidden City (three-episode TV documentary on China Central Television; later
developed into a 86-minute film version)(directed by Han Xiao and Jun Ye, featuring the Palace
Museum in China).

Its independence from the museums is also

U.S. maintain specific departments specializing

noteworthy. Commissioned works by museums

in documenting their rotating exhibitions andare expected to reveal coherence with orbudgets to collaborate with famous

greater influence from the institutional

documentary film directors (2016). In Japan,

discourse, leading to relatively easy positioning

most are planned and produced by NHK, e.g.

of the case in the proposed diagram. For

Nichiyo Bijutsukan (Sunday Art Museum), a

example, an NHK program, Tokyo National

program on air since 1976, introducing art ofMuseum: Best Three Selected from Twelve

almost all genres. According to Akira Miyata, aSections by Curators (2009), later released as asenior researcher at NHK, rather than a

DVD boxed set, introduces the history anddocumentary, Nichiyo Bijutsukan is recognized

important collections of The Tokyo National

inside NHK more as an educational program

Museum, the oldest museum in Japan. This(kyoyo bangumi). Our Museum, an independent

museum also releases a ten-minute video on its

documentary film featuring museums, serves as

official website,“140 years of Tokyo Nationala good example to test the diagram and to3

Museum”. Both works reveal the institution’s

discern Japanese characteristics.

aspiration to enhance its publicity. As
Kishimoto accounts, even this kind of3) Case Study of Our Museum (2002)

commissioned work by museums is still rare in

The discussions in this part interweave both

Japan while large museums in Europe and thecontextual and textual studies including theDocumenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum77

conception, process of filmmaking, and assumed

interrogation,“what is an art museum”for him

audience, mainly collected from an interview

and shot between 1995 and 2001 (2002).

with Kishimoto, and elements in the text

In addition to weaving personal memory into

including the story, featured museums,

the film, Kishimoto also takes part in the film

“characters”, artworks, and narration andas the narrator and appears visually. Kishimoto

sound. After contextual and textual studies, it

plays as the narrator himself, setting a tone ofanalyzes how this work can be understood

autobiography and practically to save costalong with the previously proposed diagram.

(2016). His voice-of-god narration instills both

It is first important to notice that Our

his personal memory and historical facts into

Museum has a strong autobiographicalthe scenes. In one of the beginning scenes, thecharacter in terms of conception and presence

narration recollects his first encounter withof the director in the film. In contrast with The

KMMA, saying the large doors and waxed

New Rijksmuseum (2008; sequel in 2014) which

wooden floors left the strongest impression on

is commissioned by the Museum and carries ahim. A boy strides in front of KMMA with thejournalistic value in documenting and reporting

visuals rendered in monochrome, imitating old

the institution’s renovation projects, Ourvideos. In the closing scene, a man appears

Museum was conceived out of Kishimoto’s

with camera appliances on his shoulders andpersonal enthusiasm and entirely self-funded

steps up towards the entrance of the Museum.

(Harris 2013; Kishimoto 2002 & 2016). It seems

Echoing that man’s sight, the camera scenethat many film directors, including Hitchcock,moves upward, highlights the façade of theFrederick Wiseman, and Woody Allen, share abuilding, and closes the film.

personal fascination with art and museums. As

confirmed during the interview that the boy at

Kishimoto accounts, he came to this idea when

the beginning is played by Kishimoto’s son andparticipating in the 1994 Biennale internationale

the man at the end is Kishimoto himself. The

du film sur l'art which gave him an opportunity

beginning and ending resonate with each otherto visit the museums in Paris. These trips

and lend the film an atmosphere of personal

reminded him of Kyoto Municipal Museum of

memories and emotions.

4

It is later

Art (abbreviated as KMMA afterwards) in his

In terms of the story, Our Museum is mainly

hometown and that his visits to KMMA duringhistorical and goes back and forth between thechildhood may have greatly cultivated his

two cities, Kyoto and Paris. It is a unique work

passion for art and decision to shift his careeramong Kishimoto’s oeuvre that usually features

to become a film documentarian of art. The

contemporary Japanese artists, including

production of film starts from a personal

Yasumasa Morimura, Hiroshi Sugimoto, and

78

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№92

Imo Taba, and their process of art creation

documents, Kishimoto incorporates voices from

(Kishimoto 2016). Our Museum tells how theanonymous visitors, museum professionals,

museums form themselves through historicalartists, art critics, and architects. At the very

events such as wars, architectural renovation

beginning of the film, there is a thirty-second

projects, and various activities. It is interesting

shot with twenty-five interviewees taken in

to notice that Kishimoto is inspired tofront of KMMA and the Pompidou Centre. The

reproduce the history, or document thequestion itself is not articulated but very likely

museums through research, interviews, and“what is an art museum for you”. The age

camera-work. As Kishimoto recollects, because

and ethnicity of the interviewees seem to be

the theme is primarily historical, he found it

wide ranging and the languages they use are

difficult to reproduce the old scenes (ibid.).

Japanese, English and French. Their replies

Unlike those featuring the ongoing activities ofinclude “culture”,“silence”,“testimony”,

the artists that he could simply chase with his“ e n r i c h m e n t ”,“ n e c e s s i t y ”,“ d i s c o v e r y ”,

camera, this work did not have a fixed time-line“energy for tomorrow”, and“sanctuary”. All

to follow and had to rely on research of

their answers turn out to be positive and seem

historical materials. These old photographs,

to strengthen an image that they are the ideal

drawings, and documents are introduced in the“public”who sympathize with museums.

film to pace the story.

In contrast with the twenty-five people with

The story covers six museums in total withfleeting and anonymous presence, nine figures

two in Kyoto and four in Paris. They are

were selected and given due introduction.

KMMA, Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art,

Kishimoto adopts talking-head interviews with

Museé d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paristhe interviewees’ names and occupations(abbreviated as MAMVP afterwards), Palais dedisplayed on the screen for a few seconds when

Tokyo, Galerie nationale du Jeu de Paume, andthey first appear. This mode of presentation

Pompidou Centre. Among the six, KMMA andseems to give their opinions a strong sense of

KAMVP obtain most attention. As Kishimoto

credibility and authority. These“characters”

explains, he aims to compare the case in Japan

are Suzanne Page (Director, MAMVP), Nicolas

with that in Paris; KMMA and MAMVP, both

Bourriaud and Jérôme Sans (Directors, Palais

established in the 1930s and sharing war

de Tokyo), Jean-Francois Bodin (Architect, who

experiences, serve as appropriate cases forworked for the renovations projects ofcomparison.

MAMVP and Pompidou Centre), Christine Van

In addition to his own recollections and theAssche (Chief curator, Nouveaux Médias,

institutional histories revealed mainly by the

Pompidou Center), Akiko Miki (Chief curator,

Documenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum

79Palais de Tokyo), Yoshihiro Nakatani (Curator,

Portrait of a Girl Dressed in Blue (1641) by

KMMA), Aomi Okabe (Art critic), Yasumasa

Johannes Cornelisz Verspronck almost as a

Morimura (Artist) and Miwa Yanagi (Artist). In

character in the film. The scenes of the public

the film, they share their past experience

debates over the architectural renovation coverworking with the museums and visions for thea wider range of people and seems tofuture. The interviews are in a unilateraldeliberately offer a facial close-up to someone

manner with the questions not articulated but

who looks like a homeless person, or

implied. Kishimoto explained that Okabe,

representative of those usually considered

Morimura, and Yanagi, were old acquaintances“outsiders”of museums (Oberhardt 2000, 106-of his from previous documentary filmmaking

07 & 136-37). In Our Museum, the museum

and he had happened to obtain the opportunity

space and the people who have actively

to interview them about their experiences andparticipated in the production of the space, i.e.

opinions towards the museums (2016). It seems

curators, artists, architects, and artist critics,

that Kishimoto regards the voice of these

are the stars.

people as a crucial part of Our Museum.

Our Museum refrains from use of music in

While the people working with/at thecontrast with the substantial employment ofmuseums gain strong attention, art works andthe background music in The New

visitors are downplayed. While the nine figures

Rijksmuseum and National Gallery thatare given with introductions, the film visuallyassists in playing out a dynamic atmosphere.

highlights two paintings as exhibits of the

Despite the film’s strong autobiographicalMuseum: Piano by Daizaburo Nakamura (1926)

character, it seems to endeavor to achieve

and Asa (Morning) by Satoru Katsuta (1933).

neutrality. As Kishimoto states in a newspaper

However they appear anonymously without

report, he considers that music adds suggestive

any explanation such as titles and artists.

meanings. The stories about the unrealized

Museum attenders are not much included,concepts, war experiences, struggles of theeither. They show up as visitors in themuseum directors and curators, and depiction

exhibition scenes and audience of a lectureof the potential of the museum, are narrated inabout the history of KMMA given by thea static and one-way manner. It seems that thiscurator, Nakatani. Except the thirty-second

film endeavors to claim and represent theedition of twenty-five one-word interviews, thetruth, as one core characteristic ofgeneral public is not given much facial

documentaries (Aufderheide 2007, 5; Bruzzi

featuring and is almost absent. In contrast, The

2000, 39).

New Rijksmuseum highlights the painting,80

A final point is that the reception of the film

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№92

remains largely in scenes related tofor democracy and harmony, art critics

documentary films and art. It has been

evaluate the space, and artists find inspirations.

screened during documentary and art festivals
or exhibitions and released as a DVD boxed
set. Without assuming a specific audience,4) Placing Our Museum in the“mechanics ofmuseum image construction”diagram

Kishimoto expects the histories re-examined

Rather than adopting a singular voice, Our

and the diverse voices collected through thisMuseum achieves a synthesis of opinions acrossfilm would help artists use the museum spacesectors and national borders. Although themore creatively and experts involved in thediversity and agency of the public is relatively

architectural renovation projects respect the

weak, Our Museum encompasses all discourses

museums’ past (2016). Recently with ongoingin the previously proposed model rather than

discussions over KMMA’s architectural

fitting as one of the four forces (Fig. 5). The

renovation and re-naming, Kishimoto hopes thistwo on the right are more personal withwork can assist in public comprehension of

Kishimoto’s question,“what is an art museum”

museums not as something staying unchanged

as the conception of the film, revealing a

but constantly evolving (ibid.). From theskeptical point of view, and recollections of his

newspapers, the reception seems to be positive,

childhood memory showing a degree of

evaluating Our Museum as a pioneer work

imagination towards KMMA with unusual

independently produced, exploring museums inarchitectural features. The varying voices

Japan (Fujimoto 2003; Mikami 2004).

collected through interviews include “ArtTo s u m m a r i z e , O u r M u s e u m t r i e s t oHistory”, represented by Okabe and the“document”museums in Kyoto and Paris via

contemporary Japanese artists who express

incorporations of the director’s personal

their belief that the museum is a special place,memory, historical documents, and voices fromand the“Institutional Discourse”given by Page

people who work in the fields of museum

and other museum staff. Near the end of theadministration and art production and criticism.

film, Page depicts a“living museum”portrayal

The image of the “museum” in thisthat asks vital questions related to our lives

documentary film intertwines the personal andsuch as who we are and why we exist. This

the institutional and connects histories withkind of public relationship although going down

visions towards the future. It constructs theto ontological questions reveals the cultural

museum as a place where museum

institutions’ democratic visions to stay related

professionals and architects encounter

with people’s life.

difficulties and insert efforts in building a place

Documenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum

By positioning the film in the diagram, we81can see that Our Museum offers a platform forcooperation, circulated in the festivals, film

various discourses to encounter each other. As

market, and screening in the museum setting,

Murata notices, although a large quantity ofi.e. Hyogo Prefectural Museum of Art and 21st

information about museums is circulated in theCentury Museum of Contemporary Art,

society, there is actually little opportunity for

Kanazawa, that illuminates the public

people to think about museums in their daily

relationship of the museum. By selecting anlife (2014, 8). While The New Rijksmuseum isangle shifted away from the conventional focus

appraised as a “sociological work of art

on museum collection to the space and people,

administration”, disclosing Dutch cultural

this film offers an attempt to open up thepolitics, Our Museum adopts less sociologicalmuseum discussion often confined within theobservation but presents a shared concern

museum, interrogates what is a museum, andamong the Japanese curators, artists, and art

leaves without a definitive answer but setting

critics over the history and space andan optimistic vision. This film proffers

Kishimoto’s meta-interpretation of the museum

interpretations of the museum as a place loaded(Harris 2013). Beyond the representations in thewith varying contemplations rather thanfilm, it is actually the product itself, mademerely a place for art appreciation or a work

possible with the museum professionals’

by an architect.

Fig.5.

82

To locate Our Museum in the diagram.

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№92

5．CONCLUSION
This pa pe r e x a mi n e s O u r M u s e u m a n dMuseum creates a polyphonic space where nochallenges the previous studies on film-world

singular discourse from academia, institutions,museums. It argues that this documentary film

and popular media products dominates. It

manifests the possibility of integrating theserves as a tool to stage a museum image

personal, the institutional discourse and voices

rendered on screen and invites further

from professionals in the art field. It presents

discussions. One of the remaining tasks of thisan audiovisual image of the museum as a

research is to develop thorough analysis of arendezvous for varying discourses. By adopting

broader range of cases across cultures andthe form of film, a vehicle potentially capable ofmedia forms.

reaching many, and enriching the narrative bygiving voice to selected groups of people, Our

Note:
1

Louagie examines thirty-three works (see Louagie 1996, 49-50). Jacobs’ target in his 2006 article includes six films of Alfred
Hitchcock, Blackmail (1929), Saboteur (1942), Strangers on a Train (1951), The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), Vertigo (1958),
and North by Northwest (1959). Jacobs’ 2009 article examines seventy-four films ranging from The Kiss (1929), Bands a part (1964),
to recent Hollywood films (see Jacobs 2009, 313-15). Oberhardt’s thesis (2000) focuses on five Hollywood films: She-Devil (1989),
Batman (1989), L.A. Story (1991), Born Yesterday (1993) and Absolute Power (1997).

2

Kishimoto himself uses “art documenter”, a term carrying more currency in Japanese language rather than English.

3

Tokyo National Museum website, “トーハク動画ナビ: 東京国立博物館140年の歩み”, http://www.tnm.jp/modules/r_db/index.
php?controller=list&t=movie_navi&id=4, accessed October 15 2016.

4

In the film, there is no literary explanation about the boy and the man. The author confirmed with Kishimoto during theinterview that the boy was his son, Ken Kishimoto, whose name appears in the cast list, and the man who appears in the final
scene is Kishimoto himself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aufderheide, Patricia. 2007. Documentary film: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, Tony. 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London and New York: Routledge.
Boast, Robin. 2011. “Neocolonial Collaboration: Museum as Contact Zone Revisited.” Museum Anthropology, 34:1, 56-70.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Alain Darbel. 1969. L’amour de l’art: les musees europeens et leur public, deuxieme edition revue et augmentee(The Love of Art-European Art Museums and their Publics). Paris: Editions de Minuit. Translated by Caroline Beattie and Nick
Merriman. 1990. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
Brabazon, Tara. 2006. “Museums and popular culture revisited: Kevin Moore and the politics of pop.” Museum Management andCuratorship, 21:4, 283-301.
Bruzzi, Stella. 2000. New documentary: a critical introduction. London: Routledge.

Documenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum

83Clifford, James. 1997. “Museums as Contact Zones.” Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, edited byJames Clifford. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 188-219.
Harris, Brandon. 2013. “The New Rijksmuseum-Dutch Masters: Oeke Hoogendijk on The New Rijksmuseum.” http://
filmmakermagazine.com/82933-dutch-masters-oeke-hoogendijk-on-the-new-rijksmuseum/, December 19, accessed October 12 2016.
Jacobs, Steven. 2006. “Sightseeing fright: Alfred Hitchcock’s monuments and museums.” The Journal of Architecture, 11:5, 595-602.
___. 2009. “Strange exhibitions: museums and art galleries in film.” Andre Jansson and Amanda Lagerkvist, eds., Strange Spaces:
Explorations in Mediated Obscurity. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 297-315.
Kishimoto, Yasushi 岸本康. 2002. 「OUR MUSEUM 制作記」. http://www.ufer.co.jp/about/adp/adp_pages/ADPnews_2003-1_j.html,
accessed October 12 2016.
____. 2016. Interview with the author via emails, October.
Louagie, Kimberly. 1996. “It Belongs in a Museum: The Images of Museums in American Film, 1985-1995.” The Journal of
American Culture, 19:4, 41-50.
Moore, Kevin. 1997. Museums and Popular Culture. London and New York: Leicester University Press.
Murata, Mariko 村田麻里子. 2013. 「ミュージアムから考える」.『ポピュラー文化ミュージアム：文化の収集・共有・消費』, Ishita
Saeko, Mariko Murata, and Chie Yamanaka 石田佐恵子, 村田麻里子, 山中千恵, eds. 京都：ミネルヴァ書房, 3-23.
____. 2014. 『思想としてのミュージアム』. 京都：人文書院.
Nichols, Bill. 2001. Introduction to documentary. Indiana University Press.
Oberhardt, Suzanne. 2000. “Frame within Frames: The Pedagogy of the Art Museum as Cultural Artefact.” College of Arts andArchitecture, Graduate School The Pennsylvania State University, Ph.D. thesis.
Pan, Mengfei. 2014. “Encountering and Incorporating Popular Cultures: Towards a Reconceptualization of the Museum as
Networked Media”. Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, University of Tokyo, Master’s thesis.
____. 2015. “What is NEW Museology: its Newness and Theoretical Strengths.” The Journal of The Museological Society of Japan,
41:1, 149-56.
Newspaper articles featuring Yasushi Kishimoto between 1994 and 2004:
Otagaki, Minoru 太田垣 實. 1994. 「小さな美術発信」, 『京都新聞』, 夕刊, 4月2日.
Mainichi Shimbun. 1994a. 「ビデオで残す」, 『毎日新聞』, 朝刊, 4月13日.
____. 1994b. 「京都の画廊経営者・岸本さんパリ・ベエンナーレに入選」, 『毎日新聞』, 朝刊, 8月16日.
Ishikawa, Kenji 石川 健次. 1994. 「画廊散歩 ウーファーギャラリー」, 『毎日新聞』, 朝刊, 10月1日.
Gaki, Takao 垣 孝夫. 1996. 「現代美術の粋 ビデオに記録」, 『読売新聞』, 夕刊, 7月12日.
Ohashi, Kazuhito 大橋 一仁. 1997. 「作品や作家がモチーフ 新たな魅力与える映像」, 『産経新聞』, 朝刊, 3月3日.
Arimoto, Tadahiro 有本 忠浩. 1997. 「作家の思想も映像で紹介 注目集めるアート・ドキュメンタリー」, 『毎日新聞』, 朝刊, 3月8日.
Kishimoto, Yasushi 岸本 康. 1997. 「映像で捕らえた現代美術 バイクに機材積み、制作風景や展覧会記録」, 『日本経済新聞』, 6月3日.
____. 1999. 「現代芸術のビデオ映像記録に思う」, 『京都新聞』, 7月31日.
Okamoto, Naoko 岡本 尚子. 1997. 「記録と創造 メディアから新しい美」, 『産経新聞』, 8月26日.
Kyoto Keizai Shimbun. 1998. 「熟成する映像 社会と芸術の回路を作る アート・ドキュメンター 岸本康さん」, 『京都経済新聞』, 4月
5日.
Yamada, Keiko 山田 桂子. 1999. 「新世紀人 現代アートの記録を後世へ」, 『産経新聞』, 8月30日.
Fujimoto, Noriko 藤本 紀子. 2003. 「国際美術映像祭に参加『Our Museum』岸本康監督」, 『日加タイムス』, 5月9日.
Mikami, Kimio 三上 喜美男. 2004.「映画監督の岸本康さん 美術館の面白さ」, 『神戸新聞』, 3月24日.

84東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№92

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper is based on a previous presentation, “Between the Front and Backstage: Deconstructing Museum Representations inMedia (「晴れ舞台」と「舞台裏」の間―メディアにおけるミュージアム像に関する研究)” given at Cultural Typhoon 2015. The
author wants to thank the chair of the panel, “Media, Museum, Memory”, Dr. Masato Karashima from Kwansei Gakuin University
and Kelly McCormick from Yoshimi Seminar for sharing of information and thoughts. She would also like to express her deep
gratitude to Mr. Yasushi Kishimoto for agreeing to the interview. She always owes a great debt to her supervisor, Prof. Shunya
Yoshimi for continued support and encouragement.

潘

夢斐（ぱん・めんふぇい）［生年月］1988 年 1 月［出身大学または最終学歴］シドニー大学 Master of Museum Studies; 東京大学学際情報学府アジア情報社会修士［専攻領域］ミュージアム・スタディーズ［主たる著書・論文］（3 本まで、タイトル・発行誌名あるいは発行機関名）「Whose is the Museum? A Case Study of The Tokyo Imperial Household Museum Competition in 1931」,
Proceedings of 11th International Symposium on Architectural Interchanges in Asia, pp. 920-25, 2016 年 9 月 .
「『ニュー・ミュジオロジ』とはなにか：その新しさと理論的な強み」,『博物館学雑誌』,41:1, pp. 149-56, 2015 年 12 月 .
「Redesigning the Physical Boundary: The Emergence of the Glass Age of Museum Architecture from the
1990s」,『東京大学大学院情報学環紀要』, 89, pp. 99-118, 2015 年 10 月 .
［所属］東京大学大学院 学際情報学府 アジア情報社会博士課程［所属学会］全日本博物館学会 , 日本都市計画学会

Documenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum

85Documenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film,
Our Museum
Mengfei PAN*

The museum exists on multiple levels. In addition to policies, legislations, physical buildings, andacademic discourse, the museum is also presented in various kinds of media products. This research
focuses on the museum in the documentary film, Our Museum (2002) directed by Yasushi Kishimoto.
It argues that this work plays a role in documenting the museum, and more importantly, mediating
the often-contrasting museum images that various societal players tend to construct. It provides aplatform to raise questions about the raison d'être of the museum by interweaving personal memories
and visions with the registered histories of institutions and countries.

This research adopts an interdisciplinary approach to fill the gap between film studies and museum
studies. Through textual analysis of Our Museum (2002) and a few other examples including The
New Rijksmuseum (2008; sequel in 2014) and National Gallery (2014) and contextual studies of thefilmmaking process, it finds that previous theories fail to grasp the precise museum image in these
documentary films. By examining whether Our Museum coheres with previous studies on film-world
museums, this paper argues that rather than deifying or demonizing museums, it achieves
constructing the museum as a place in which varying personal thoughts are instilled. By adopting theform of film, a vehicle potentially capable of reaching many, and enriching the narrative by giving
voice to selected groups of people, Our Museum creates a polyphonic space rather than inclining
towards any of the imageries from academia, institutions, and popular media products. It serves as atool to stage a negotiated museum image on screen and invites further discussions.

Ph.D. student, ITASIA Course, Prof. YOSHIMI Shunya Laboratory, Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, The
University of Tokyo
Key Words：museum in media, museum in documentary films, museums in Japan, museum studies

86

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究№92