Monday, 18 April 2011

A pause...

... I have long dreamt of. Until May 9.

Until then, should you be short of things to read, get to know ‘my’ Cuban. About a year ago I joined the group of people who translate into various languages the blog Generacion Y, by Yoani Sánchez. Yoani is an intelligent, sensitive, dynamic, courageous woman. Translating her posts is like a window that opens and brings knowledge, pleasure, sometimes great joy and others tears to the eyes.

One of the most special moments in this last year was on February 12, when Yoani wrote Egypt 2.0. On that same day, another woman in Egypt wrote Fin du régime.

I am waiting for the day I´ll stop translating Yoani´s blog. It´ll be a happy day.

Monday, 11 April 2011

Words, images, feelings, perceptions: everything counts

Halicarnassus Mausoleum (Image from Ten Books on Architecture by Vitruvius)
Augusto M. Seabra writes in Arte Capital on The work of art in the era of its digital reproducibility (text available only in portuguese). This is a very interesting text, that presents and reflects on a series of antitheses in the way various authors see the relationship between the works of art and museums and the relationship between the public and the works of art through the means of museums and, nowadays, through the means of their online presence.

The considerations of the above mentioned authors (Valéry, Proust, Malraux, Benjamin) and the issues raised by Augusto M. Seabra made me reflect both as a museum professional and as a visitor. Nevertheless, the text makes me want to comment mainly on issues of terminology and perceptions.

Seabra tells us that Theodor Adorno, in the introduction of his book Prisms, enunciates: “The german word ‘museal’ has got unpleasant overtones. It refers to objects to which the observer no longer has a vital relationship anymore and which are in a death process, owing their preservation to the historic respect rather than the need of the present. Museums and mausoleums are connected by more than phonetic association. Museums are like the family sepulchres of works of art”.

Adorno´s text dates from 1967. Twenty four years later, in 1991, Nick Merriman published Beyond the Glass Case: The past, the heritage and the public. Merriman did a public survey, aiming to better understand the perception people had of museums. One of the questions was: “Which of these things do museums remind you of most?”. The majority of the people surveyed (35%) answered “library” (44% of frequent visitors and 24% of non-visitors) and 34% answered “monument to the dead” (the big majority of non-visitors and rare visitors, but also 17% of frequent and 28% of regular visitors).

Twenty more years have passed and various studies indicate a change in the relationship of people with museums. Although not of all people and not with all museums… The perception of a silent, dead, irrelevant, intellectually inaccessible space persists. What makes the difference? Definitely, the stance chosen by museums themselves. The relation and perceptions change when museums aim to fulfil their mission by embracing all of their five functions (collect, preserve, research, exhibit and interpret) as equally important; when they do not only look inwards and do not aim to impose agendas and interests; when they are interested in getting to know better the communities in which they are inserted and which they should serve; when they are working in order to be relevant to them; when they know how make people comfortable, physically, psychologically and intellectually; when thy recognize, and do not undervalue, the social context of the visit; when they aim to be spaces of discovery, challenge, fruition; when they give up on monologue and promote dialogue; when they know how to adapt their language according to the person they are speaking to, in other words, when they are committed to communicating (I´ve previously discussed some of these issues in the posts Invitation to the partyAnd after all what´s my visionTalking about new audiencesMuseums: new churches and Free to visit an art museum).

Adorno´s reference to the word ‘museum’, and to what it represents, made me think about all these things and in particular about the terminology used by Portuguese museum professionals today. ICOM´s definition of museum covers various types of institutions and spaces that share the same mission and carry out the same functions as museums. Thus, the following institutions and sites are considered museums: natural, archaeological, ethnographic and historical sites and monuments; botanical gardens and zoos, aquariums and hatcheries; science centres and planetariums; art galleries and exhibition galleries attached to libraries and archives; natural reserves; institutions or organizations that develop activities of conservation, research, education, training, documentation and others related to museums and museology; cultural centres and other institutions that promote the preservation, continuity and management of tangible and intangible heritage resources.

With such a comprehensive definition, I wonder why in Portugal we feel the need to use expressions such as ‘musealized spaces’ and ‘musealized objects’. To me, they´ve always sounded like ‘dead and silent spaces’ and ‘embalmed objects’. I know it´s probably not the same for everyone, but this is what they´ve always sounded like to me. I´ve never used these expressions. I´ve never needed them in order to be able to express myself with precision. I never liked them. I think they only serve to complicate (why not call things by their names?) and to reinforce the negative perceptions some, many, people have of museums. The words ‘musealize’ and ‘musealized’ point, in my opinion, to a certain process. That of ‘dignifying’ a space or removing an object from its natural context and giving it a ‘treatment’ that would make it worthy of being part of a collection, of becoming a ‘museum object’. I believe that this terminology, the feeling – very subjective, yes – it provokes in me, doesn´t do justice to the efforts of many museum professionals who are committed, precisely, into creating or preserving contexts, telling stories, creating comfortable conditions, making a visit a stimulating, surprising, funny experience, allowing people to gain a feeling of ownership of the space. Since we are all aware of the negative perceptions of the public, it seems preferable to me avoid the use of a language that may reinforce them. It seems preferable to me to care for the word ‘museum’ and to continue working so that it may acquire positive overtones for more and more people.

Monday, 4 April 2011

Why things aren´t happening?

Despite the pile of books, articles, magazines and reports on my desk, this week I didn´t read anything. It was a long pause. But I thought about many things. I particularly thought about why things arent´happening. They aren´t happening as we enunciate them, they aren´t happening as we plan them, they aren´t happening as we want them to happen, as they should happen, as it would be right for them to happen.

In these last days I heard speeches, I attended presentations, I talked to friends, colleagues, acquaintances. It seems that when we talk we say the right things, we believe in them with conviction, it seems we are one step away from making them happen.

But they aren´t happening. The distance between thinking/talking and doing seems to be enormous. Why? Are we better at talking rather than doing? Do we only say them, exhaustingly repeat them, because they sound nice, because they are the right things to say, but we are not capable of moving from theory to practice? Or is it that we don´t have a real interest that they do actually happen? That we are not sufficiently committed? That we don´t know how to plan, establish priorities, move forward one step at a time? But… move forward.

Ideias and practices of some years are presented as if they were a novelty, the last discovery. They are not. They have been a reality for many years now in other countries and other areas. Why do we take so long to accept them and put them into practice? Resistance to the new? Different rhythmes? Different conditions? Or simply conformism?

Something is missing, that´s for sure. Knowledge, capacity, determination, professionalism, organization, planning, sincerity? Or simply a vision?