David Fleming is a museum professional I
greatly admire and respect and he has deeply influenced my thinking on the role
of museums. Some years ago, Josie Appleton criticised his option of coming into
museums because this was his way of trying to change the world by saying “An
admirable aim, of course, but maybe Fleming should have become a politician or
a social worker rather than a museum director.” [in Watson, E. (ed), Museums
and their Communities, p116]. I, personally, am glad David came into museums
and actually became a museum director. And it is with great pleasure that we
publish in this blog a shortened version of his speech The Political Museum,
given at the INTERCOM Conference in Sydney last November. The complete version may be found at the end of this text. mv
Photo taken from the website of National Museums Liverpool |
1. Introduction – the myth of
neutrality
It is a tradition in museums that we are,
or should be, apolitical, by which I mean that museums should not involve
ourselves in the power relationships that characterise society. It’s not our
job to get embroiled in the world of real people, real events, controversy and
opinion. What we ought to do is use our knowledge and expertise to assemble and
care for our collections, and to present them in a neutral fashion for public
benefit, floating on a cloud of scholarly virtue, hovering well above the
mundane realities of human life. In fact, to keep doing what many museums have
attempted to do for most of the time since they were set up.
It is, of course, the
height of hypocrisy, and, indeed, is utterly vacuous, to claim that museums
have ever been ‘neutral’ about anything. All the basic tasks that we undertake
- researching, collecting, presenting, interpreting – are loaded with meaning
and bias, and always have been; these tasks are the museum’s methods of serving
up to the public what the people running the museum wish the public to see.
Museums are social constructs, and politics is a cornerstone of social activity
– you can’t have one without the other. No matter what type of museum, no
matter what it contains, decisions have been made by someone about what to
research, what to preserve, what to collect, what to present, how to interpret;
and decisions have been made about what not to do, what not to research, what not to preserve, what not to collect, what not to present, what not to interpret.
I’m not altogether certain why some museum
people, and others, have seen such value in portraying ourselves as
disinterestedly pursuing knowledge, as though by doing so we avoid the risk of
becoming political. The issue isn’t “is it right or wrong for museums to be
political?” but “all museums are political, why do some pretend that
they’re not?”.
2. The political museum in action
a) Old Model
After their conquest of Greece in the 2nd century BC, the Romans used triumphal
display of objects to show the superiority of Roman to Greek culture. This was
a technique continued throughout the ages, by the Christian Church, by
Charlemagne, by the Venetian Republic, by Napoleon, by the Nazis, and by many
others – in all these instances any aesthetic appreciation of the objects
displayed was probably subservient to the political power message. Some of the
great museums of Western Europe are particularly good examples of the
Old Model Political Museum, with their displays of imperial plunder and their
casual assumption of European superiority over other peoples. The political
nature of such museums has been revealed in the justifications for the
existence of “universal” museums, a concept which came to renewed prominence in
2003 with the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums by the directors of a self-selected
group of big European and US museums. The Old Model Political
Museum is best characterised by its stealth. It is political, but it pretends
it isn’t – it pretends that it is merely orthodox and truthful. It is a museum
that would thrive in George Orwell’s Oceania.
b) New Model
Photo taken from the website of Tuol Sleng Memorial Museum. |
A couple of weeks ago I received this email
from the Director of the Memorial Resistance Museum in Santo
Domingo: “I just created a new petition and I hope you can sign. It's called: We are
fighting for the right to the truth and justice for the victims of the
dictatorship of Trujillo.”
I went to the website and found the
following: “We ask the General Attorney of the Dominican Republic, Mr. Francisco
Dominguez Brito, to enforce the laws and the international treaties on human
rights, defend the rights of young people and Dominican children to truth,
defend the right to justice for the more than 50 thousand victims of the dictatorship of Trujillo,
the survivors and the relatives of the victims. We demand the fulfilment of the
decision of the Dominican courts, that protect us from the vindication of the
regime and the figure of the dictator, and for a Commission of Truth.”
This is the political museum in full flow.
In conclusion, there is a gap between the
active, campaigning museums that we have been looking at, and those that go
about their political business more discreetly, but the gap is superficial. I
would argue that most museums are political, and it is naïve or dishonest to
pretend otherwise. We shouldn’t regret this, as though there is a better,
neutral state somewhere to which we should aspire – it is human nature to be
political, and thank goodness it is.
David Fleming´s full keynote speech may be found
here. The Museum of Liverpool, one of the museums under David´s direction, was awarded last month the Council of Europe Museum Prize for 2013 by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). PACE said “The Museum of Liverpool provides an exemplary recognition of human rights in museum practice." (read here)
Further readings
The political museum professional, by Suse Cairns
Places of encounter, by Maria Vlachou
Silent and apolitical?, by Maria Vlachou
Check also:
David Fleming became Director of National Museums Liverpool in 2001. He has overseen a radical change management process that has resulted in Liverpool audiences rising from around 700,000 per year to 3.5 million, at the same time increasing markedly in diversity. He has advised a number of governments, museums and municipal authorities, both nationally and internationally, on national museum strategy, project management, exhibition design and museum governance. He has published extensively on museums and lectured on museum management and leadership, social inclusion, city history museums and human rights museums in more than 30 countries. He is Founding President of the Federation of International Human Rights Museums (FIHRM), Vice-Chair of the European Museum Forum, and Chairman of ICOM’s Finance and Resources Committee. He is a past President of the UK Museums Association and has served on several UK Government committees and task forces.
1 comment:
Inspiring words.
I admit I enjoyed the museums riff on gangnam style in support of ai weiwei and censored artists everywhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcjFzmWLEdQ
(AI sponsored video with Anish Kapoor)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn08lUhbF0Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBJwL3cvrSw
Post a Comment