• No results found

The visitor-focus in museum exhibition management

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The visitor-focus in museum exhibition management"

Copied!
105
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

1

The visitor-focus in museum

exhibition management

The visitor as social cause or

moneymaker?

Marjolein Dik ReMa Cultural Leadership

Master’s Thesis 2019

(2)

2

The visitor-focus in museum

exhibition management

The visitor as social cause or

moneymaker?

Name: Marjolein Dik

Student number: S2352230

Study: Research Master Cultural Leadership Faculty: Faculty of Arts

University: University of Groningen Course: Master’s Thesis

Subject: The academic and political visitor-focus in contemporary Dutch museum exhibition management

Lecturer: Dr. J.L. de Jong

Second reader: Prof. Dr. B.A.M. Ramakers Date: December 10th 2019

(3)

3

Abstract

Shortly after the Second World War, questioning and reviewing of the justification of museums, their role in society, and its functions and potentials occurred. With the rethinking of the position and function of museums, a need emerged for a broader understanding of where exhibition ideas come from; how exhibitions are developed; what its costs are; what choices are made and by whom. However, a changing societal and economic situation made it necessary for Dutch art and history museums to adapt their exhibition management on an organizational and strategic level. They realized that only showing their collection in a permanent exhibition did not suffice any longer. Notably, an interest arose in what benefits could be expected from exhibitions in terms of engaging with the visitor and its impact on museum finances. From the 1960s onward, the visitor-focus emerged and gained the interest of researchers in the academic field of Museum Studies and of the Dutch government. Nowadays, the visitor-focus has permeated many if not every aspect of contemporary Dutch museum practice but has most clearly vested itself in museum exhibition management. Until today, the turn to the visitor is among the most significant ongoing challenges for Dutch art and history museums. It required significant changes in the purpose of the institution, the societal tasks, and exhibition management. Moreover, Dutch art and history museums went from a collection-based towards a visitor-focused exhibition management. Despite its importance in Museum Studies and museum practice, the influence, effects, and implementation of the internal and external formed visitor-focus has rarely been studied, let alone on a national level. This study, therefore, aims to determine the establishment, ideas and implementation of the visitor-focus and offer a framework for the understanding of contemporary organizational and strategic exhibition management. It is also argued that the visitor-focused exhibition management is the result of its time since its implementation is part of societal, political and economic change in the Netherlands.

(4)

4

Table of content

ABSTRACT ... 3

TABLE OF CONTENT ... 4

PREFACE ... 6

TIME FOR CHANGE: ACADEMICS AND POLITICS ON MUSEUM AND EXHIBITION MANAGEMENT ... 13

1.1MUSEUM STUDIES ... 13

1.1.1 The development and emancipation of a research field ... 14

1.1.2 From old to new museology ... 16

1.1.3 A theoretical transformation of museum exhibition practice ... 19

1.1.4 How new is the new museology? ... 26

1.2DUTCH CULTURAL POLICY ... 27

1.2.1 The formation of Dutch cultural policy (for museums) ... 27

1.2.2 From subsidized museum to a cultural enterprise ... 29

1.2.3 The failure to increase inclusiveness and cultural consumption ... 31

CURRENT EXHIBITION MANAGEMENT IN DUTCH ART AND HISTORY MUSEUMS ... 36

2.1ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE PERMANENT COLLECTION EXHIBITIONS AND TEMPORARY EXHIBITIONS ... 37

2.1.1 Permanent presentation ... 37

2.1.2 Temporary exhibitions ... 39

2.2TYPES OF PERMANENT PRESENTATIONS AND TEMPORARY EXHIBITIONS ... 40

2.2.1 Permanent presentations ... 41

Narrative, thematic and core collection presentations ... 41

The immovable permanent collection presentation ... 42

The flexible permanent presentation ... 44

(5)

5

Tenability, exhibition surface, refurbishment and renovation ... 49

2.2.2 Temporary exhibitions ... 53

Quantity, Quality, and budget ... 54

2.3TARGET AUDIENCES ... 55

2.3.1 The different target groups ... 57

2.3.2 Additional programming ... 61

2.4THE PERMANENT PRESENTATION ON THE SIDE-LINES OR A CORE BUSINESS?... 62

2.4.1 Permanent presentations on the side-lines of marketing campaigns ... 62

2.4.2 Permanent presentation as core business ... 63

THE 21ST-CENTURY DUTCH EXHIBITION MANAGEMENT: THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE ... 66

3.1SOCIAL ROLE AND IDENTITY ... 66

3.2CURATING A PERMANENT PRESENTATION AND TEMPORARY EXHIBITIONS ... 67

3.2.1 Permanent presentation ... 68

3.2.2 Temporary exhibitions ... 72

3.2.3 Curatorship and co-curating ... 75

3.2.4 Inclusivity and the multinarrative ... 77

3.2.5 New technology and information provision ... 79

3.3TARGET AUDIENCES ... 80

3.3.1 The visitor composition, goals, needs and expectations. ... 80

3.3.2 Know your visitors ... 85

3.4FINANCIAL STRATEGIES OF EXHIBITION MANAGEMENT ... 86

3.4.1 Funding and cultural policy: ... 86

3.4.2 Cultural entrepreneurship and the leisure market ... 88

3.5CONTEMPORARY EXHIBITION MANAGEMENT-THE EMBODIMENT OF THEORY AND PRACTICE? ... 91

CONCLUSION ... 94

(6)

6

Preface

The front pages of museum websites and magazines are nowadays predominantly graced by temporary exhibitions. Museums communicate these exhibitions to the public as their main attraction, their principal benefit, and primary activity.1 The permanent (collection) exhibition, on the contrary, is put forward little to none. The emphasis on temporary exhibitions in current museum exhibition management is not self-evident. It is the result of internal and external rethinking of the function of museums in Dutch society the last decennia.

Art and history museums were, and often still are, considered to be exclusive and elitist. They are perceived as static institutions, instruments of ideological hegemonies and power structures, and stuck in the past. This created a ‘narrative of original sin.’2 Art and history museums were thought mainly to exist to acquire, safeguard, conserve, and display various kinds of (historical) objects. Nowadays, this would be a conventional definition of their function. Dutch art and history museums have been subject to demands for reform causing museum orthodoxies to be challenged.3 Shortly after the Second World War, a questioning and reviewing of the justification of museums, their role in society, and its functions and potentials occurred. It changed the identity, tasks, practices, and viewpoints of Dutch art and history museums, making it a dynamic institution.4 Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, professor emeritus in Museum Studies, endorses this, stating that museums are rapidly growing, expanding, developing, and increasingly vary in size, subject matter, and identity. It would, therefore, be ignorant to continue to assume that museums are old-fashioned and static institutions from the past.

Among the many tasks and departments of Dutch art and history museums, the internal and external rethinking of the societal function and position of museums had a significant influence on exhibition practice and management. Museum exhibition practice, in particular, has visibly shown the transitory nature of the institutions the past decennia.5 Nowadays, a decade rarely passes without changes due to rehanging, rearrangement, relocation, or complete

1 Barry Lord, “The purpose of Museum Exhibitions,” in The Manual of Museum Exhibitions, eds. Barry Lord and Gail Dexter Lord (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002), 12.

2 Andrea Witcomb, Re-imagining the museum: Beyond the mausoleum (London; New York: Routledge, 2003), 12. Effrosyni Nomikou, “Museology without a Prefix: Some Thoughts on the Epistemology and Methodology of an Integrated Approach,” ICOFOM Study Series, no 43A (2015): 209.

3 Peter Vergo, “The Reticent Object,” in The New Museology, ed. Peter Vergo (London: Reaktion Books, 1989), 41.

4 Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the shaping of knowledge (London: Routledge, 1992), 1. 5 Vergo, “The Reticent Object,” 42. Nomikou, “Museology without a Prefix,” 209-210.

(7)

7 reconstruction of museum spaces.6 Although less visibly, exhibition management also changed. With the rethinking of the position and function of museums, a need emerged for a broader understanding of where exhibition ideas come from; how exhibitions are developed; what its costs are; what choices are made and by whom. Notably, an interest arose in what benefits could be expected from exhibitions in terms of engaging with the visitor and its impact on museum finances.7 The visitor’s needs, expectations, educational levels, and numbers became central in developing exhibitions. Dutch art and history museums gradually shifted from a collection-based focus towards a visitor-focused exhibition management.

The visitor-focus in exhibition management, however, became primarily fixated on the visitor as a tool to generate income and to establish inclusiveness. These aspects became prominent in exhibition management due to the external influence of the Dutch government’s cultural policy and academic researchers in the field of Museum Studies. Their rethinking of the function and position of art and history museums in Dutch society intensified the already increasing visitor-focus in exhibition management. For academics and Dutch politicians, the emphasis on the visitor as a source of income and social legitimation culminated in the exhibition practice and management because exhibitions are considered to be the principal reason for a museum visit and the principal tool to provide visitor’s needs. This idea is supported by museum visitors themselves, arguing they are searching for unique experiences.8 Visitors, thus, come for "spectacular exhibitions and other startling presentations" to find desired and unique experiences.9 Simultaneously, for Dutch art and history museums, permanent and temporary exhibitions are an essential part of owning and caring for cultural property. Besides, exhibitions are the most apparent and crucial means of access to and enjoyment of museum collection(s).10 For that reason, it is not surprising that all art and history museums are preoccupied in one way or another with the display of their collection(s) – or more accurately – a part of their collection(s) in permanent and temporary exhibitions.

Dutch art and history museums were no longer able to ignore the external viewpoints of the field of Museum Studies and Dutch cultural policy. The framework of a visitor-focused

6 Ibidem.

7 Gail Dexter Lord, “Introduction: The Exhibition Planning Process,” in The Manual of Museum Exhibitions eds. Barry Lord and Gail Dexter Lord (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002), 1.

8 Vergo, “The Reticent Object,” 42. Anna Grigorieva, “From special objects to special experiences: Museum Uniqueness in the Third Millennium,” Presentatie op jaarlijkse bijeenkomst ICFA, Changing rooms?! Permanent

displays and their storage (Copenhagen, 19 September 2017).

9 Guus van den Hout, “Oude kunst met nieuw beleid: Veranderingen in het Catharijneconvent,” in Kunstlicht 24, no. 3 (2003): 9.

10 Christian Schittich, Exhibitions and displays: Museum design concepts, brand presentation, trade show design (Basel: Birkhüser, 2009), 201.

(8)

8 museum offered by Dutch cultural policy and researchers in the field of Museum Studies provided a set of principles. However, the actual impact and implementation in museum exhibition management have not been examined. There are few exceptions concerning case studies of individual museums. These case studies fail to give insight in exhibition management on a national level.11 Therefore, the main question of this thesis is: Have Dutch art and history museums taken into account the visitor-focus of Museum Studies and Dutch cultural policy in contemporary exhibition management, if yes, what are the arguments and results of the implementation?

According to scholars in the field of Museum Studies, their visitor-focused principles should be enshrined in art and history museums.12 The field of Museum Studies assumes that as a result of their rethinking of the purposes of museums and the implementation of a visitor-focus, changes in the understanding of museum functions, activities, and foremost exhibition management were caused.13 However, the art and history museums have long denied the relevance of the research produced by Museum Studies. Although often having an academic background themselves, museum employees thought of academic publications as failing to provide relevant criticism. The research on museums conducted by academics from Museum Studies was based on past practices and thus regarded to be outdated. Besides, the findings of Museum Studies were considered to be too conceptual. Nevertheless, –with time passing and with changes in their methodologies to collect relevant data concerning museum practice and museum visitors– the visitor-focused framework of the academics and politicians became increasingly relevant. Also, a changing societal and economic situation made it necessary for museums to adapt and implement a visitor-focused exhibition management.

Until today, the turn to the visitor is among the most significant ongoing challenges for Dutch art and history museums. It required significant changes in the purpose of the institution, the societal tasks, and exhibition management.14 The internal and external viewpoints on

11 Espacio Visual Europa (EVE), “New Museology Concepts,” in Museology, Museums, Personal Opinion (January 24th 2015) accessed (May 13th 2019) via https://evmuseography.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/new-museology-concepts/#comments cf. the essays in Guntarik 2010 and MuseumsEtc 2011, Dun-can 2004. Nomikou, “Museology without a Prefix,” 205-206. Ross, “Interpreting the New Museology,” 84-103.; Simon,

The Participatory Museum, 2010.

12 Nomikou, “Museology without a Prefix,” 205-206. Max Ross, “Interpreting the New Museology,” in Museum

and society 2, no. 2 (2004): 84-103. Nina Simon, The Participatory Museum (Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0,

2010).

13 Vikki McCall and Clive Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology’: theory, practice and organisational change,” Museum Management and Curatorship 29, no. 1 (2013): 3. McCall and Gray, Guntarik, MuseumsETC, Duncan’s (1995) analysis of some of the larger European museums highlighted that there had indeed been a change to public consumption within The Louvre and National Gallery of London

14 Eilean Hooper-Greenhill. “Studying Visitors,” in A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. Sharon Macdonald, (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006), 362.

(9)

9 implementing a visitor-focus in exhibition management helped Dutch art and history museums realize that only showing their collection in a permanent exhibition did not suffice any longer. Museums understood that permanent and temporary exhibitions are not solely choices in content and objects but also organizational and strategic choices. Therefore, the implementation of the visitor-focus in exhibition management led to various strategies, new exhibition models, and exhibition formats. An exhibition program nowadays is more multi-faceted being composed of (1) the relatively long-term display of a museum’s permanent collection to be seen in multiple galleries, (2) short-term temporary exhibitions based upon a museum’s collection or loans from other museums, (3) traveling exhibitions that are borrowed from and shared with other museums, and (4) the educational and other public programs associated with the exhibitions.15 The changing internal and external viewpoints towards museums made present-day Dutch museum exhibition management more versatile, visitor-focused, and led to museums progressively engaging in making temporary exhibitions. Certainly, in the past 40 years, Dutch art and history museums underwent an unprecedented transformation by reshaping their exhibition management.

To conduct this research, two kinds of methodologies were needed. The first is a literature and source study to construct the visitor-focused framework in Museum Studies and Dutch cultural policy concerning exhibition management. The second methodology consisted of interviews with –mostly– museum directors to establish current exhibition management in art and history museums. Interviews allowed for collecting specific data and was the only method to collect this data since current exhibition management is absent in academic research, annual reports, policy plans, and museum websites.16 This research is, therefore, both an exploratory and a comparative study. The interviews were face-to-face, semi-structured, and contained open-ended questions. The interviews contained questions about exhibition management in the field of a museum’s profile, visitors, policy, display modes, and marketing. The same questions were asked to all interviewees to extract the same type of information without losing the individual characteristics and stories of the museums.17 The face to face semi-structured character of the interviews gave room for additional questions to answers of the interviewee. To protect privacy, this research had to refrain from using quotes from the

15 Barry Lord, “Permanent collection display,” in The manual of museum exhibition, eds. Barry Lord and Gail Dexter Lord (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002), 261-262.

16 W. van Peer, J. Hakemulder and S. Zyngier, Scientific Methods for the Humanities (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012), 84.

(10)

10 interviewees. Additionally, this form of interviewing made the analysis and comparison of the given information less complicated and more efficient.

Relating current Dutch exhibition management with the visitor-focused framework constructed by researchers from Museum Studies and Dutch cultural policy givers insight into the interaction between theory, politics, and practice. This research shall focus on the way Dutch museums adopt, develop, or discard the visitor-focus solely in their exhibition management on an organizational and strategic level. Due to the intended mapping of a visitor-focused exhibition management focus lies on aspects such as the mission and vision, working cost, forms of display, and visitor numbers and target audiences. It leaves aside topics such as acquisition, collection, conservation, and the content of exhibitions.

To be able to give a manageable overview of the strategic exhibition management in the Netherlands, the focus lies on (medium) large-sized art and history museum.18 This part of the thesis is derived from a research traineeship at Museum Catharijneconvent in Utrecht. Therefore, the museums have been selected in consultation with Marieke van Schijndel (Director of Museum Catharijneconvent), Sebastiaan van der Lans (Executive Secretary), Frank van der Velden (Head of curators and research) and Marieke Meijers (Project leader). Consequently, the participating museums relate to Museum Catharijneconvent based on size, programming, visitors (numbers), or recent refurbishments.19 An interim summary of the results that appeared in the form of a professional document for Museum Catharijneconvent was presented multiple times to several parties.

Self-evident to the explorative character of this research were various methodological challenges. Firstly, each museum within the Netherlands is unique. Therefore, no museum has the same policy for permanent and temporary exhibitions. The differences arise from differences in origin, collections, mission or vision, target groups, location, government subsidies, workforce, and the museum building. It also means that a particular aspect of exhibition management is successful in one museum but might not be applicable to another. To

18 Museums receiving millions of visitors each year like the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam and the Van Gogh Museum are excluded.

19 Interviews and participating museums are: Kris Callens, director of Fries Museum; Andreas Blühm, director of Groninger Museum; Harry Tupan, director of Drents Museum; John Sijmonsbergen, deputy director and head of strategy and innovation of Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen; Benno Tempel, director of Gemeentemuseum The Hague; Arnoud Odding, director of Rijksmuseum Twenthe; Marco Grob, business director of Centraal Museum; Sjarel Ex, director of Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen; Charles de Mooij, director of Noordbrabants Museum; Wim Wijland, director of Rijksmuseum van Oudheden; Judikje Kiers, director of Amsterdam

Museum; Marjan Ruiter, director of Zeeuws Museum; Ralph Keuning, director of Museum de Fundatie; Liesbeth Bijvoet, business director of Joods Historisch Museum and Hetty Berg, manager museum affairs of Joods Historisch Museum; Michel Hommel, head public affairs of Teylers Museum; Quentin Buvelot, head curator of Mauritshuis en Stijn Huijts, artistic director of Bonnefantenmuseum.

(11)

11 not get lost in details, it was of importance to recognize overarching aspects. It also allowed for greater relevance for participating museums and institutions concerned with cultural policy. This research, therefore, identifies critical aspects of exhibition management considered by museums. The way museums give substance to these aspects are left aside to maintain a manageable first impression of current exhibition management. Difficulty also arose with the use of graphs and statistics from interviews, annual reports, policy plans, and Museana. Dutch museums do not measure the same data in the same way. Also, insight into the data is not always provided. The numerical data is, therefore, approximate and imaging. Nevertheless, this form of information is essential in this early stage of researching exhibition management. It sets a baseline for further research. Lastly, the terminology or definition given to a term such as permanent or temporary exhibitions by museums differed. This research considers a permanent exhibition to be a display of several years, consisting of a museum’s collection. A temporary exhibition is considered to be a short-term display of a few months consisting of loans and supplemented by objects from the museum collection. A semi-permanent exhibition is regarded as a display of a museum’s collection for a period that lies between the permanent and temporary exhibitions.

The first chapter of this research presents the visitor-focused framework by researchers from the field of Museum Studies and Dutch cultural policy. This chapter first outlines the origins and ideas surrounding a visitor-focused museum and explores expectations it sets for exhibition management. This chapter answers questions such as; what is a visitor-focus?; what are the main characteristics of a visitor-focused exhibition management?; what political, economic and social pressures gave impetus to a visitor-focused exhibition management?; and how has cultural policy developed and influenced museum practices? The second chapter will discuss the current exhibition management of Dutch museums on a strategic and organizational level. This chapter is based on the 17 interviews with museum directors and staff. In this chapter, the questions answered are: What is the purpose of permanent and temporary exhibitions? Who are the visitors, and what are they coming for? What display mode has been applied, and for what reasons? The third chapter analyses the similarities and differences between the visitor-focused framework and current exhibition management. It will answer questions like does Museum Studies and Dutch cultural policy reach the art and history museums? Do museums feel they need the theoretical visitor-focused framework, and if so, how are the theories implemented and turned into practice? Also, it is discussed how a cultural institution that valorizes visitor experience and community engagement, simultaneously became cultural entrepreneurs.

(12)

12 This research intends to expose some of the patterns of thought which went into the making of temporary and permanent exhibitions in relation to the visitor-focused framework. In doing so, this thesis will argue that the shift towards the visitor can be seen as a shift corresponding with internal and external viewpoints. This research outlines the extent to which Dutch museums at a strategic and organizational level have understood the need to change their exhibition management by embedding the visitor in everyday practices. It provides a synoptic overview of aspects internal to museums as social, cultural, and entrepreneurial institutions that have affected the extent to which change has occurred. It identifies how they have contributed to the partial and inconsistent implementation of the principles of the visitor-focus in the Netherlands.20 This research is, thus, explorative research that – for the first time – gives insight into the theoretical and practical visitor-focused museum on a national level, offering an understanding of contemporary Dutch strategic and organizational exhibition management.

20 McCall and Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology,” 3. Espacio Visual Europa (EVE), “New Museology Concepts.”

(13)

13

Chapter 1

Time for change: Academics and politics

on museum and exhibition management

Looking at the past several decades, Dutch art and history museums underwent a profound internal and external reorientation and reinvention of its purpose(s). It did not leave the organizational and strategic exhibition management untouched. The late twentieth century saw the rise of a fundamental reimagining of Dutch art and history museums as a visitor-oriented institution. Although there were changes that were internally motivated, Dutch art and history museums opened up to –or were forced to implement- viewpoints of external (f)actors. Developments within the academic research field of Museum Studies and changes in Dutch cultural policy helped place focus on the visitor instead of the museum collection. But, what do the visitor-focus of Museum Studies and Dutch cultural policy comprise of?

1.1 Museum Studies

Museums have a long history in which their role, function, practice, and audience underwent multiple changes. These changes and developments have been researched in the field of Museum Studies. This research field has, in general, concerned itself with museum history, philosophy, the ways museums have been established and developed, the aims and policies of museums, museum education, and the political or social role of museums.21 The scholarly study of museums as a form of cultural study and critique has existed since the late nineteenth century. However, with a changing institution also comes a changing research field. Museum Studies underwent a progressive and critical development. It resulted in a new way of thinking that is since the late 1980s, and early 1990s called the new museology. The current formation of Museum Studies is, thus, relatively young.22 The critical view in Museum Studies focused on museum practices, especially regarding exhibition management, and emphasized the visitor. The visitor-focus proved to be an important development for the strategic and organizational exhibition management of Dutch Museums but also turned out to be essential for the research

21 Peter Vergo, “Introduction,” in The New Museology, ed. Peter Vergo (London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1989), 1. 22 DesRoches, “The marketized Museum,” 3-4. Ross, “Interpreting the new msueology,” 84.

(14)

14 field itself. To grasp the relationship between museum exhibition management and Museum Studies, several questions must be asked and answered regarding the latter. For instance, when, how, and for what reason(s) have the perspectives within Museum Studies changed over the years? What are according to researchers in Museum Studies the considerations and characteristics of a visitor-focused museum? What aspects of the visitor-focused museum are ascribed to museums’ exhibition management? Moreover, what claims do researchers in the field of Museum Studies make to change Dutch museum exhibition management?

1.1.1 The development and emancipation of a research field

In the period of absolutism, mid-seventeenth until the early 19th century, all significant forms of display served to strengthen royal power or the status of nobility in the public domain. It was these high classes who collected artifacts and later on donated their collections to cities to become museums. Therefore, museum collections today are often formed by –or based upon– the tastes and preferences of the elites.23 After handing over the collections, museums became responsible for the artifacts. Traditionally, museums have been thought to have five principal responsibilities: the collection, study and conservation of artifacts, the interpretation of these objects, and creating exhibitions. These responsibilities were considered to form an entity, “like the fingers of a hand, each independent but united for a common purpose.”24 It also became the joint focus of museum practice and Museum Studies.

During the nineteenth century, a professionalization of museum practice took place with which the development of Museum Studies is strongly associated.25 The national professionalization trend in the Netherlands acknowledged practical problems shared by various museums. The professionalization caused multiple changes in the meaning and (exhibition) practice of museums.26 First, collections were reorganized following the principle of representativeness instead of rarity. Second, due to the introduction of historicized principles, the display in museum exhibitions was rearranged.27 The historicized display principles were part of a general transition from the classical to the modern episteme, famously described by

23 Neringa Stoskuté, “Tension between everyday practice and the new museology theory: a case of the national gallery of art in Vilnius,” in Art History & criticism (DeGruyter, 2017), 78.

24 Stephen Weil, “Rethinking the Museum: An Emerging New Paradigm,” in Reinventing the Museum:

Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift, ed. Gail Anderson (Walnut Creek, CA:

AltaMira Press, 2004), 74. Davina M. DesRoches, “The marketized Museum: New museology in a corporatized world,” The political economy of communication 3, no. 1 (2015): 5.

25 Nomikou, “Museology without a Prefix,” 204. Peter van Mensch, “Towards a methodology of museology,” (PhD diss., University of Zagreb, 1992), 4. L. Teather, “Museum studies. Reflecting on reflective practice,”

Museum Management and Curatorship 10, no. 4 (1991): 403-417.

5 Mensch, “Towards a methodology of museology,” 4.

(15)

15 Foucault, in which history and time consist of periods succeeding each other.28 The exhibition displays, especially the permanent collection display, became fixed universal, chronological, and progressive presentations through which the visitor would pass. It was, however, not subject to revisions and interpretations. Today, this form of exhibition practice is considered ‘traditional.’29 Another change in this period concerns the function and position of the museum in society by cause of a functional transformation. Museums started not only to serve the curiosity of few, consisting of elite classes but established themselves as institutions for the knowledge of the entire society. The transformation of exhibition practice happened slowly and was completed in the final quarter of the nineteenth century.30 These changes are considered to be the first museum revolution. It marked the beginning of the development of practices such as curatorship, conservation, documentation, and education. The nineteenth-century developments in museums and its practices are especially significant because it upheld for decennia and formed the basis from which one of the most recent shifts in the research field of Museum Studies set off. Namely, in the 1960s, a gradual change was instigated in museum practice and within Museum Studies.

The theorists of Museum Studies concluded that both their research field as well as museum practice had thrived in the first museum revolution of the nineteenth century but eventually were slowed down in their evolution. The theorists of Museum Studies increasingly felt their research field to be narrow, shallow, obsessed with display and collection methods and assuming the universality of museums and the centrality of objects without critical thought.31 Moreover, while looking at the museums, they saw a similar tendency arguing against the “old, obsolete, no longer accepted or relevant practices.”32 A critical shift in the practice of art and history museums started when critical reflection emerged by the museums to further improve their practices. Museums incorporated their critical thinking into the collection and the display of exhibitions.33 However, the theories of Museum Studies, which until then run –almost– parallel to museum practice could not keep up. The criticism of Museum Studies about museum praxis was often based on historical practices. While there are valid

28 Ibidem.

29 Michaela Giebelhausen, “Museum Architecture,” in A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. Sharon Macdonald (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006), 223-244.

30 Bennett, The birth of the museum, 39.

31 Nomikou, “Museology without a Prefix,” 204-205. 32 Ibidem.

33 Sharon Macdonald, “Expanding Museum Studies: An Introduction,“ in A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. Sharon Macdonald (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006): 1. Zsófia Frazon. New Museology,

in Curatorial Dictionary (accessed on June 10th 2019)

(16)

16 arguments to such criticism, it does not show the whole picture of museums and so fails to provide relevant criticism. It made the observations of museum studies outdated. Another argument often given is that Museum Studies have become too conceptual and have broken with museum professionals and museum practice. Museum theory and practice, thus, went their separate ways. According to Peter van Mensch, the emancipation of Museum Studies was a logical consequence of these developments in museum practice during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.34 Museum Studies, underwent a critical development, taking a theoretical turn, and earning its academic standing.35 Museum Studies, thus, made a gradual shift wherein publications increasingly dealt with the process of exhibition-making, preservation, education, temporary exhibitions, and display (tactics) on a theoretical level. The theories of Museum Studies had left the museum practice behind, resulting in the often declared gap between theory and practice. Museums have therefore long thought that they, as practitioners do not need theory in their exhibition management.

1.1.2 From old to new museology

A major international turning point for Museum Studies was sparked by the ninth General Conference of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), held in Grenoble and Paris in 1971. The conference had the theme 'The Museum in the Service of Man, Today and Tomorrow.' Until then, the meetings of ICOM had focused on the traditional roles and tasks of museums concerning itself with topics such as collecting, conservation, curatorship, research, and communication. The conference emphasized the role of museums in society and education. ICOM called for a transformation of the museum based on the demands of the social, environmental, and demographic position of the community. Developments in society and the world led museums towards assuming new commitments and adopting new forms of museum practice. The conference argues that these new commitments must be based on “the cultural needs of the community completely independent of circumstantial factors, with an understanding of the problems of the contemporary individual and a respect for the liberty of information.” 36 Nevertheless, ICOM did not entirely break away from the traditional museum practice. It stated that “the traditional primary functions of museums should be seen as first and foremost in the service of all mankind, and of a constantly changing society.”37 Regardless, the conference was a turning point for museum practice and Museum Studies because, for the first

34 Mensch, “The museology discourse,” 6. 35 Idem, 2.

36 Mensch, “The museology discourse,” 5.

(17)

17 time, the concept of a visitor-focused museum had been given a large stage. The ICOM conference concluded that the research of Museum Studies was still subject to past and outdated social, cultural, and museum situations. If it wanted to stay relevant, the ICOM conference stated that the research field needed a drastic change, a turn back to the museums it studied.38 The theorists of Museum Studies took this to heart in the following years. They reviewed their possibilities to regain relevance for the museum. It resulted in the research field re-evaluating the purpose of museums with a new point of view, namely the visitor.

In the 1980s, all viewpoints relating to the museum visitor culminated in a new way of thinking within the research field of Museum Studies. It was put forward to be a new discourse that years later received the name New Museology. Researchers who supported this perspective considered the new museology to become the second museum revolution.39 The researchers of Museum Studies started to deepen their interest in the visitor-focus, making it a theoretical and philosophical discourse. Museum Studies, thus, went away from the practical idea of museums and started to focus on the social and political roles of art and history museums.40 Especially the rethinking of the social role of art and history museums led Museum Studies, in line with the 1971 ICOM conference, to argue for a visitor-focused museum practice.

The visitor-focused framework by researchers of Museum Studies was, however, not always clear and straightforward. Chiefly during its early years of development, the visitor-focused framework seemed a chaotic multi-faceted discourse. The reason is self-evident. The researchers in Museum Studies drew theories and approaches from various research fields such as anthropology, history, art, and folklore, and applied those disciplinary perspectives to museum interpretation and interaction with communities.41 Also, during the early 1980s, the visitor-focused framework was simultaneously and independently formed by different schools of thought within Europe. Only when, Peter Vergo in 1989, published his book, The New

Museology, the many trains of thought were gathered relatively clear.

According to, professor in cultural heritage, Peter van Mensch the term new museology was already introduced as muséologie nouvelle in France in 1980 by French museologist André Devallées.42 Devallées wrote a piece for the Encyclopedia Universalis titled ‘Nouvelle

38 Mensch, “The museology discourse,” 5.

39 Zsófia Frazon. New Museology, in Curatorial Dictionary.

http://tranzit.org/curatorialdictionary/index.php/dictionary/new-museology/ . Griselda Pollock and Joyce Zemans, Museums after modernism: Strategies of engagement (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007).

40 Stoskuté, “Tension between everyday practice,” 77. Francois Mairesse and André Desvallées, Key Concepts of

Museology (Paris: Armand Colin, 2010). Espacio Visual Europa (EVE), “New Museology Concepts.”

41 Susan Applegate Krouse, “Anthropology and the New Museology,” Reviews in Anthropology 35, no. 2 (2006): 171 (169-182).

(18)

18 Muséologie’ about a new vision of social development for museums. The word was implemented in French Museum Studies and subsequently was taken over by Spanish, Portuguese, and later on by English researchers in Museum Studies. However, the term embodied different aspects of museums in different countries. Moreover, the new museology not only developed in multiple countries, but it also developed in numerous timeframes with differences in their success.43 The new museology in France focused on museums going beyond their walls into society. In the Netherlands, the focus lay on the curatorial voice in exhibitions. The new museology in the United States emphasized the shift from museum methods to the purpose of the museum.44 And the new museology in Great Britain seemed to rethink the role of museums in society.45 The new museology was, beyond doubt, a multifaceted movement within Museum Studies in the early 1980s. It is, therefore, in the early years, more appropriate to speak of multiple new museologies.

Nevertheless, it is Peter Vergo who is considered to be the patriarch of the new museology within the field of Museum Studies. Vergo brought the various aspects of the new museologies together. Vergo’s publication The New Museology, consisting of essays, became a pillar of the new museology and critical museum theory.46 The book helped the debate about the role of museums in society further. It contributed to a new understanding of museums, combined and resolved the various issues researchers in Museum Studies had with old museology, and explicated the use of the theoretical visitor-focus in practice. Moreover, it outlined trends in museum collections and ways of exhibiting, dealt with specific functions of museums, and reflected on the museum’s lack of self-reflection.Vergo stated, “what is wrong with the ‘old’ museology is that it is too much about museum methods and too little about the purposes of museums.”47 Vergo’s new museology, thus, moves away from aspects of collecting, keeping, and displaying to a more philosophical focus on the purpose of museums by researching the relationship between the public and the museum. He argues for an entirely new perspective on the community by putting the people in the center of museum practice.48 In doing so, he renounced the image of Museum Studies' focus on past events since Vergo aligned the research field to the visitor-focused museum of the 1971 ICOM conference. Vergo’s book

43 Nomikou, “Museology without a Prefix,” 205. 44 DesRoches, “The marketized Museum,” 4.

45 Peter Davis, Ecomuseums: A Sense of Place (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1999, 55.

46 Macdonald, “Expanding Museum Studies,” R. Mason, “Cultural theory and museum studies,” in A companion

to Museum Studies, ed. Sharon Macdonald (Malden, USA; Oxford; Victoria, Canada: Wiley Blackwell, 2006),

17-32. Hooper-Greenhill, Museum and the Shaping of knowledge (1992).

47 Vergo, The new museology, 3. Stoskuté, “Tension between everyday practice,” 77. 48 Stoskuté, “Tension between everyday practice,” 77.

(19)

19 finalized the departure from old museology and established the entry of Museum Studies into a new museology.

In the 1990s, 2000s, and even in the 2010s, new publications appeared to develop further the issues raised by Vergo’s The New Museology. Also, training courses and specialized journals were created.49 Today, almost forty years after the formal establishment of the new museology in Museum Studies, the visitor-focused framework has finally started to take a definite shape. It enables us to chart the full topics of the framework and indicate which aspects form the visitor-focused framework by Museum Studies. It also finally enables to take a closer look at its influence on museum exhibition management.

1.1.3 A theoretical transformation of museum exhibition practice

The visitor-focused framework of the new museology resulted in a broad change of viewpoints among the researchers of Museum Studies. For instance, it led the research field to draw up aspects that characterized the so-called ‘post-museum.’ While analyzing the literature from the past 40 years, several characteristics of the new museology concerning exhibition management can be outed. These characteristics are part of a shift in focus within the new museology of Museum Studies from objects to ideas, from collection to visitors and from inside to outside the walls.

The first and most important aspect of the new museology is the wish to establish a new relationship between art and history museums and society. In 1971 it was claimed that art and history museums were isolated from the modern world, elitist, obsolete, and a waste of public money.50 This perceived elitism, the divisiveness, the transparently ideological mission of many museums became extensively debated in the literature.51 The exclusivity was linked to claims about cultural status and the idea that the role of museums was to ‘civilize’ and ‘discipline’ the population. Museums positioned themselves in society and compared to other museums by differentiating between ‘high’ and ‘elitist’ cultural forms which they considered to be worthy of preservation, and ‘low’ or ‘mass’ ones, which were not. Therefore, the new museology concluded that the museums privileged its collection-based function and its social links to the cultural tastes of particular social groups.52 It was, therefore, the social function of museums that the new museology wanted to change by introducing a new perspective on museum

49 Mensch, “The museology discourse,” 4.

50 McCall and Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology,” 2. 51 Ross, “Interpreting the new msueology,” 85.

(20)

20 practices.53 The new museology of Museum Studies argued that museums should no longer be about the collection it holds and for only the few elite and curious people. Museums should be for society in all its facets. Museums should, thus, become institutions that, as Stephen Weil famously claimed, be from being about something to being for somebody.54 To start establishing new relationships between museums and society, the new museology argues that museums taking care of a regional collection are in an excellent position to reach out to the local community. These museums, the new museology states, can establish a changing dynamic with its surroundings on a small scale by presenting itself as a local representative.

Second, the visitor-focus of the new museology in Museum Studies argues for the centrality of the visitor. Knowledge of target audiences became a vital aspect of the visitor-focused framework. For that reason, visitor statistics became more important. Questions often asked are; what is the gender, age, origin, and education level of the visitors? Although visitor statistics have been collected from as early as the 1830s, it had a different purpose. These statistics only allowed visitor numbers to relate to days of the week or times of the year. The earliest use of these statistics was to show the increased visitor numbers in the evenings, during holidays and on Sundays. The statistics also served as evidence of the museum’s capacity to bring culture to the working class and, therefore, measured the civilizing influence of museums.55 Many of these statistics are still collected, but with visitor-focus of the new museology, the purpose of visitor research changed. The new museology started to emphasize visitor statistics to improve museum access and foreseeing in visitor needs. The new museology’s visitor-focus advanced knowledge of visitors grew enormously in the last decades. The visitor statistics and studies by the new museology of Museum Studies followed a pragmatic route using various qualitative and quantitative methods.56 Measuring, counting, and mapping formed the basis of the majority of museum visitor studies.57 The knowledge could, according to the new museology, be used to enhance the museum visit and the exhibitions for the different target audiences. This became of importance due to the realization that people tend to experience the museum differently from one another and thus also learn differently when visiting an exhibition. This made museums aware that different exhibition techniques are needed to make an exhibition suitable for various target audiences, and thus meeting the needs

53 Ross, “Interpreting the new msueology,” 84 McCall and Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology,” 1. 54 Stephen E. Weil, “From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum”, Daedalus 128, no. 3 (summer 1999): 229-258. Stephen Weil, Making Museums Matter (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books, 2002), 14-150.

55 Bennett, The birth of the museum, 8.

56 Nomikou, “Museology without a Prefix,” 208. 57 Hooper-Greenhill, “Studying Visitors,” 371.

(21)

21 of their visitors.58 Exhibitions were less formed based upon the museum collection or a curator's interests but much more from the interest and joys of the museum visitor.

Learning and education have a long tradition in museums — the third aspect of the visitor-focus of new museology related to rethinking the emphasis on education.59 The new museology strived to instigate new exhibition formats with a strong educational orientation.60 Museums have always been knowledge institutions, and with the visitor-focus of the new museology, this did not change. However, according to the new museology of Museum Studies, the knowledge that museums possess should now have a social purpose translated into education.61 For museums, it would mean a rearrangement of museological knowledge into educational practice but also in museum communication towards audiences.62 The previous aspects of the new museology show an apparent change in stance towards the visitor. The museum no longer provides while the visitor consumes. The new museology of Museum Studies puts much more emphasis on what the museum gives its visitors to consume.

The fourth characteristic of the visitor-focus of the new museology is its plea to change museum practice and exhibition management with a new vision on the role of curators and scholars. The new museology of Museum Studies states that the exhibition practice at the time implied that only a narrow social group decides how museums are operated and managed.63 Curators and scholars for long held a dominant position within the museum management because traditional museum practice had put the knowledge and expertise of curators and scholars central to the museum exhibition management. It was self-evident to charge curators with the responsibility to present the museum’s collection to the public and fulfilling the museum’s mandate to interpret and communicate. The authority of the curator was based on his or her familiarity with the works of art, and knowledge derived from research.64 The idea prevailed a general public understanding that museums were a cultural authority in which curators and scholars uphold and communicate truth through exhibitions.65 There should,

58 Philip Wright, “The Quality of Visitors’ Experiences in Art Museums,” in The New Museology, ed. PeterVergo (London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1989),132.

59 DesRoches, “The marketized Museum,” 4-5. 60 Mensch, “The museology discourse,” 4.

61 McCall and Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology,” 3. See also: Weil, “Rethinking the Museum,”(1990), Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the interpretation of visual culture (London; New York: Routledge, 2000).

62 Zsófia Frazon. “New Museology,” in Curatorial Dictionary.

63 Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the interpretation of visual culture (London; New York: Routledge, 2000).

64 Margaret May, “Exhibition ideas: integrating the voices of communities and audiences,” in The Manual of

Museum Exhibitions, eds. Barry Lord and Gail Dexter Lord (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002), 32.

(22)

22 however, according to the new museology, be a shift in the role of especially curators. Curators must transform from being a legislator to an interpreter with a visitor-oriented ethos.66 Curators and scholars should no longer merely broadcast information but should become actively involved in the formulation and construction of messages the museum wants to carry out.67 But also, according to the new museology, every action undertaken by curators should adhere to the principles of the external focus and social responsibility.68 This would mean a redistribution of power within museums.69 However, the obligation of curators to research the collection and upcoming exhibition topics must remain unchanged.

The fifth significant viewpoint that the new museology of Museum Studies outed argues that museum exhibitions must leave room for multi-narratives. Exhibitions, often in art museums, lack narratives by the absence of a historical and cultural context in the permanent collection exhibition. In the old museology, artworks were detached from the original context and placed within a new setting that illustrated the museum's authority, power, and knowledge of its collection.70 However, the new museology argues that the aesthetical, chronological, and linear displays no longer suffices. According to the researchers of Museum Studies, exhibitions can no longer be understood merely as the rational scientific presentation of a single worldview. The new forms of display must be open and ambiguous. Objects are triggers of chains of ideas and images that go beyond their original intended and given starting point. Therefore, the new museology claims that objects should be arranged in such a way that multiple references between the displayed objects- and thus many histories- become possible, allowing for multi-layered meanings.71 Also, the new museology claims that museums must realize and accept that objects do not tell a single story but are representatives of several stories and stand in relation to other objects telling different stories. A belt buckle next to garments, trousers, and boots becomes a periodic fashion item, while the same item next to collectibles from a battlefield becomes a war piece. The objects in a museum collection are not static.

A sixth aspect of the new museology to change museum exhibition management is the allowance of interpretation when visiting an exhibition. As noted by Stephen Weil, “an exhibition is shaped from its very outset by the values, attitudes, and assumptions of those who choose and arrange the objects that it contains.” Therefore, interpretation cannot be viewed

66 McCall and Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology,” 2-3. 67 DesRoches, “The marketized Museum,” 5.

68 Ibidem.

69 Espacio Visual Europa (EVE), “New Museology Concepts,”. 70 Stoskuté, “Tension between everyday practice,” 82.

71 Rosmarie Beier-de Haan, “Re-staging histories and identities,” in A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. Sharon Macdonald (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006), 193.

(23)

23 separately from exhibition management, especially since exhibitions themselves come to be via the interpretations of the museum collection by curators. However, the new museology argues that curators and scholars should no longer actively steer how an exhibition is to be interpreted and should accept the experience-based interpretations of visitors. Also, the truth claim should be subjected to interpretation, accepting the idea that views of reality are individual and depend on context.72 This is, thus, closely related to the earlier argument to renounce the cultural authority and the truth claim of museums. To allow for visitor interpretations in exhibitions, an open relationship between the artworks and the visitor should be established so that the narrative constructed by museums can be supplemented by the knowledge and experiences of its visitor.73 Museums, thus, should acknowledge the external fusion of interpretation and exhibition within museum exhibition management.74 In doing so, the new museology thinks the museum again abandons the nineteenth century linear and chronological exhibition displays.

Seventh, the new museology argues to review the power relationships in the exhibitions of art and history museums concerning ownership, voices, and representation. In the old museology of Museum Studies, but also in museum exhibition practice, collections of art and history museums are treated as sets of artifacts, displayed based on their aesthetic quality, and classified according to certain aspects and traits. For example, by their form of expression (painting, sculpture, drawing), movements (Impressionism, Surrealism, Conceptualism), types (pottery, swords, buttons). The artifacts lost their context and thus the representational function of the people who used the objects.75 These power relations on which museums have long relied are according to the new museology of Museum Studies not in line with the social role it sees for museums. The new awareness of the power relations abandons the grand narratives which have dominated museum exhibitions. The new museology shifts its focus to the minorities who lacked a voice within the museum institution. This aspect of the new museology not only questions the cultures and audiences that are represented in the museum but also the artifacts it has (not) in its collection. Rethinking power, ownership, voices, and representation are considered essential in a pluralistic and multicultural society.76 Therefore, art and history museums should, according to the new museology, emphasize contextual exhibition display, offer broader access to the museum, be aware of diverse audiences, and dismantles cultural

72 Idem, 192-193.

73 Stoskuté, “Tension between everyday practice,” 79. 74 DesRoches, “The marketized Museum,” 4-5.

75 Stoskuté, “Tension between everyday practice,” 78. Charles Saumarez Smith, “Museums artefacts, and Meanings,” in The New Museology, ed. Peter Vergo (London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1989), 9.

76 Ross, “Interpreting the new msueology,” 84-85-90. DesRoches, “The marketized Museum,” 5. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the interpretation of visual culture, 2000.

(24)

24 barriers.77 With this aspect, the new museology argues for a widening of participation, representation, and a deconstruction of the museum as an institution for curatorial practices.78 This aspect of the new museology must be seen as an effect or extension of a shift in cultural studies in general that steps away from presenting only facts of major historical events. Micro and macrohistory, with an emphasis on context, descriptions, and emotions, enabled museums to focus on daily subjects, memories, and experiences.79 The viewpoint of the new museology of Museum Studies to review power relations, specifically those that engage and embrace community representation, inclusiveness, and relevance, are built upon the idea that universal constructs from the global context in museum display rarely relate to those who visit, use and are represented within art and history museums.80 This strengthens the gap between the museums and society, which the new museology wants to mend by arguing for a museum display that adheres to society. The rethinking of power relations is, therefore, essential in the foundation and development of inclusive museum exhibition practices.81

Closely related to the new focus on diverse groups in society comes the eighth aspect of the new museology of Museum Studies, namely allowing for visitor input. According to the new museology, the new focus in exhibition management to find a better connection with the multicultural society needed not more scholarly and curatorial input but the view of its visitors. Accompanying these changes in their display instigated a move towards using visitor questionnaires to collect individual opinions. The literature on museums showed that most exhibition analysis’ and reviews had taken the form of critical review, with little concern for the experience of those who visit them.82 After decennia of developing the traditional knowledge of art and history museums (purpose, history, collection, conservation, staff), the new museology encouraged the knowledge of visitors (profile, needs, learning, expectations, and experience).83 With the new museology, the visitor is not only put central in museum management but is also subjected to an increasing amount of surveys. The rise of such questionnaires enabled museums to evaluate exhibitions from the perspective of its audiences

77 Stoskuté, “Tension between everyday practice,” 76. McCall and Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology,” 2-3.

78 DesRoches, “The marketized Museum,” 4-5. Nomikou, “Museology without a Prefix,” 205. 79 Beier-de Haan, “Re-staging Histories and Identities,” 186-187.

80 Joshua M. Gorman, “Universalism and the new museology: impacts on the ethics of authority and ownership,”

Museum Management and Curatorship 26, no. 2 (2011): 150.

81 Susan Applegate Krouse, “Anthropology and the New Museology,” Reviews in Anthropology 35, no. 2 (2006): 170-171.

82 Nick Merriman, “Museum Visiting as a Cultural Phenomenon,” in The New Museology, ed Peter Vergo (London: Reaktion Books, 1989), 149.

(25)

25 or gain insight into the expectations and viewpoints of its visitors.84 However, the visitor input was not limited to the questionnaires. The new museology argued for a more dynamic relationship between museums and their visitors or specific communities. The new museology claims that the public should not only have a role as a visitor but also a more controlling role in curatorial practices.85 This viewpoint involves visitors in the exhibition-making or allows them to comment on the given information. The visitor input is connected with the emergence of community museums, and integrated museums that have a social purpose wherein curatorial choices are made by locals. These types of museums are examples of democratic museums. The era of the museum as the mighty and undisputable knowledge institution no longer fitted in the social function the new museology wished for.

Ninth, to continue with increasing external input, the new museology argued for another collaboration for art and history museums, namely with artists. The new museology theorists claim that art and history museums must review their conventional exhibition displays and their interpretations of history or its collection to come to new initiatives. Inviting artists to join making an exhibition offers the opportunity to work with practicing artists who approach exhibition display or the museum exhibition differently and could advise in the matter.86 This approach is a two-way process in which art and history museums offer contemporary artists challenging alternative locations and contexts to work. Artists, on the other hand, provide the museums with a way to revivify their collections and attract new audiences.87 This aspect of the new museology instigated a drastic change of traditional curatorial practice. It is not only supposed to change curatorial practice but also transforms the way knowledge is produced for which, as already mentioned before, museums were traditionally seen as an indisputable institution. The collaboration with artists is also seen as a way for museums to challenge or critique their self-reflection and authorship.88

The last aspect of the new museology envisions regarding exhibition management concerns the use of new technologies. The practice of displaying objects along with only written information ceased about thirty years ago to be the almost ubiquitous way of presentation. Increasing the use of information and communication technologies can help enhance the visitor experience and engagement.89 These technologies allow museums to deepen their collections

84 Beier-de Haan, “Re-staging Histories and Identities,” 186-187. 85 McCall and Clive Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology,” 2-3.

86 James Putnam, Art and Artifact: the msueum as medium (London: Thames &Hudson, 2009), 301. 87 Idem, 31.

88 Zsófia Frazon, New Museology, in Curatorial Dictionary. Vergo, The New Museology (1989). 89 DesRoches, “The marketized Museum,”4-5.

(26)

26 because using these makes more information available in exhibitions. The technologies also enhance and improve the experience of an exhibition visit either visually or by emerging the visitor. Another way for museums to use technology is by reaching out to their visitors, when not in the museum, to enlarge their visitor engagement. For all of these reasons, the new museology claims museums should actively implement the new technologies.

1.1.4 How new is the new museology?

It can be concluded that the ideas of the new museology of Museum Studies have been changing and widening the expectations about what museums should deliver and be. At least for their own research field.90 The visitor-focused framework of the new museology developed around the social and political roles of museums encouraged new relationships and sought new ways of expression and display.91 However, these aspects, which the new museology propagates as their visitor-focused museum, are not entirely new. Before the field of Museum Studies started to elaborate on the importance of the visitor, museums already had begun to discard their fully collection-based exhibition management by taking into account the visitor. It is sure that in the early years of the establishment of the new museology, the renewed critical view of Museum Studies brought the research field closer to the museums. For that reason, the new museology resolved many of the complaints outed concerning the research field during the ICOM conference of 1971. And although many of the insights offered by the new museology already roamed around within art and history museums, it helped structure and gave insight into the development of the visitor-focus in the museums.

There has, however, been little research after the establishment of the new museology. Only a few publications research if museum practice has implemented, changed, or discarded the principles of the new museology. The existing studies that have been done consist of case studies of particular examples of innovative work within individual museums (McCall and Gray, Guntarik, MuseumsETC).92 Nonetheless, no study has been done from a national perspective. For a long time, this lack of research was explained by the gap between theory and practice saying what a museum worker was practicing is either a science different from museology or a practical activity based on the knowledge of museology. This view agrees with the distinction between museology and museography as the theory and practice of museum work.93 However, the new museology of Museum Studies, often in its more recent publications,

90 McCall and Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology,” 4. 91 Mairesse and Desvallées, Key Concepts of Museology, 2010. 92 McCall and Gray, “Museums and the ‘new museology,” 3. 93 Mensch, “The museology discourse,” 9.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright

The expectation is that the three optimism measures have a negative effect on three year IPO performance, measured in buy-and-hold returns (BHAR) and cumulative abnormal returns

The estimation of center of mass movement is based on fusion of center of pressure data with double integrated ground reaction force data, both estimated from signals measured by

Ik kon hierover nog geen nadere mededelingen doen, maar wel melden dat mijn PUB-score met 672 nog nooit zo hoog is ge- weest en dat de teller van mijn NAT-waarde op 27 staat,

This study suggests that the larval abundances can be best explained using a habitat model including the following parameters: Vegetation, Sampling round, Percentage of habitat that

gemeenten Nijmegen, Arnhem en ‘s-Hertogenbosch specifiek problemen ondervinden bij de toepassing van participatieplanologie in de praktijk, namelijk: het verwerken van input vanuit de

In Strauss’s words: “we have at all events to take cognizance of the paradoxical fact that the earliest presentation of Hobbes’s political philosophy is at one and the

Our data cover 11 countries in three major con- sumption categories, food and beverages, fuel, and electronics, from 2011 to 2017.. In a valida- tion exercise, we find that