A NEW MUSEUM DEFINITION? [Part I]
By: Sandro Debono
Tags: Future, Art, Museums, Heritage, Community

Let us turn to the proposed double-barrel definition. The phrasing used and the key words that can be underpinned can provide us with insight as to whether this definition speaks for where the museum landscape stands today or whether this is more akin to an ambition. The first part reads eloquently well.

“Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.”

1. ‘… democratising, inclusive and polyphonic’

This I consider to be very much in line with the ambition of a human-experience or human centred museum or, better still, a museum at the service of humanity. I particularly like the word polyphonic, which reminds me of an orchestra with its various components playing a given repertoire. The individual components may just be playing a script, somewhat boring or perhaps incomprehensible when hear in isolation, but harmonious and inspiring when heard together. Questions nonetheless beckon. How much are today’s museums inclusive and polyphonic not only in their programming and events but also in the collections they develop or get entrusted with? How much is the art museum representative of the polyphony of cultures that constitute a given community?

2. ‘… spaces for critical dialogue about past and futures.’

Yet again, this is about the ways and means how museums can and should should aspire to become cultural spaces where publics meet collections and material culture on display. It is within these spaces, at the intersection of these encounters, that new ideas and thoughts about our past and futures are incubated. Sadly, however, this is not so common as one might expect. More often than not, it is the token visit that counts for millions of visitors to museums, and that special encounter with a masterpiece that is oftentimes on a tick-box list of to do’s.

3. ‘… safeguard diverse memories …’

This too is something that museums struggle to engage with. It is a fact that the vast majority of museums, particulary those with national status, strive to safeguard the official memory of the state rather than the polyphonic narratives of a history that should by now be read beyond the victor-victim paradigm. Indeed, when will the memory of the vanquised and that of the victor be celebrated within the same cultural space that is the 21st century museum?

4. ‘… guarantee equal rights …’

I think museums at large are still far from universally acknowledging this valie and giving such a guarantee. Equal rights ambitions have so far revolved around such things as bespoke programming for ‘special needs’ visitors and minority communities. Such guarantees would eventually need to inform what is collected and goes on display, which in the case of national museums is oftentimes in response to the endorsed and institutionalised narrative of the state. Indeed, equal rights would concern not only access but also representation and display. Are museums doing so universally? I doubt it.