Defining the Museum of the 21St Century

Defining the Museum of the 21st Century Evolving Multiculturalism in Museums in the United States Editors Yun Shun Susie Chung Anna Leshchenko Bruno Brulon Soares Defining the Museum of the 21st Century: Evolving Multiculturalism in Museums in the United States Papers from the ICOFOM online symposium with Southern New Hampshire University in the United States on September 14, 2018 Editors Yun Shun Susie Chung Anna Leshchenko Bruno Brulon Soares 2 This publication brings together a selection of papers presented at the online symposium organized by ICOFOM under the general theme Defining the Museum of the 21st Century, with Southern New Hampshire University in the United States on September 14, 2018. International Committee for Museology – ICOFOM 3 Editors Yun Shun Susie Chung Southern New Hampshire University Anna Leshchenko Russian State University for the Humanities Bruno Brulon Soares Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro President of ICOFOM François Mairesse, University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle Organizing Committee, Southern New Hampshire University Lori Stein James Fennessy Robert Denning Yun Shun Susie Chung Peer Review Committee, Southern New Hampshire University Yun Shun Susie Chung Cassandra Clark Everett Dague Katherine Perrotta James Ricker Editorial Committee, Southern New Hampshire University Yun Shun Susie Chung Cassandra Clark Robert Denning Katherine Perrotta Published in Paris, ICOM/ ICOFOM, 2019 ISBN: 978-92-9012-452-8 (paper version) ISBN: 978-92-9012-453-5 (electronic version) 4 5 Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the generosity of the time and efforts of all the organizers, James Fennessy, Associate Dean of Liberal Arts at SNHU, who made the web platform and overall management of the symposium possible, Robert Denning, Faculty Lead for History at SNHU, who produced the website and led the podcast interviews, and keynote speakers, chairs, and presenters, who made this symposium and publication possible. Portions of the introduction include information from the U.S. museum definition synthesis written by Yun Shun Susie Chung, Robert Denning, and James Fennessy. Special thanks to Peter Davies, Director of Product Marketing at SNHU, who supported this online symposium by producing postcards to be distributed to several conference ve- nues and museum publications desks as promotional materials. We appreciate the activities of the Peer Review Committee, Yun Shun Susie Chung, Cassandra Clark, Everett Dague, Katherine Perrotta, and James Ricker, who offered their expertise in helping to select the abstracts that fit the criteria of the Call for Papers. Also, it was kind of many museums organizations that assisted to share our Call for Papers, ICOFOM interviews, and registration information. Our sincere appreciation goes out to our audience who participated in the questionnaire, synchronous discussions, and polls. 6 Table of contents Foreword . 9 François Mairesse Introduction . 15 Yun Shun Susie Chung Anna Leshchenko Bruno Brulon Soares Evolving Multiculturalism and Museums: Where Are We Now? . 23 Contested Terms, Contested Territory . 25 James Fennessy From “Cabinets of Curiosities” to Decolonization: A Crash Course in Museum Studies . 29 Robert Denning A Perspective on Multiculturalism and the Museum of the 21st Century . 35 Debbie Disston Nations Building, Community, and Diversity: Toward a New Definition of ‘Museum’ . 41 Yun Shun Susie Chung Keynote: Native America & Indigeneity . 51 The 21st Century Museum in Native America . 53 Alyce Sadongei Nation-Building in Museums in the United States . 63 In Lieu of Objectivity: Defining Advocacy in the New Museum . 65 Lara Hall Legal, Equitable, and Ethical Perspectives on Heritage in Museums . 73 Mariko Kageyama 7 Commemorating the Civil War in Border States: The Case of John Hunt Morgan . 83 Jillian Hartley Collecting Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Museums in the United States . 91 The Artifacts of Cultural Change and Their Effect on the Museum . 93 Jeffrey Max Henry Calling for the Inclusion of “Natural” Heritage in the New ICOM Definition of the Museum . 101 Fabienne Sowa – Dobkowski MUSEUM 4D . 107 Alexandros Giannikopoulos Serving Nearby Heritage for All in Museums in the United States . .113 Defining the Citizen within the Rural Museum: A Case Study in Programming . 115 Natalie Sweet The 21st Century Museum as a Lab: Lessons Learned from MoMA’s Educational History (1937-1969) . .121 Sara Torres Vega Toward Inclusive Museum Archives: User Research at the Smithsonian’s National Anthropological Archives . 129 Diana E. Marsh Museums of Greater Consciousness . 143 Antoniette M. Guglielmo Chairs’ Statements on Panels . .151 Statement on “Nation-Building in Museums in the United States” . 153 Deborah Ziska Statement on “Collecting Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Museums in the United States” . .157 David J. de la Torre Authors . .161 8 9 Foreword Fore- word 10 Foreword Foreword 11 François Mairesse ICOFOM President This book is the third of a series devoted to the redefinition of the museum that ICOFOM has launched in parallel with ICOM’s project to revise its own museum definition. This process was started in 2016 with the establishment of a working group on the museum definition, headed by Jette Sandahl. Its closure is planned for the General Assembly of ICOM in 2019 in Kyoto, where a new definition could be proposed. It is difficult to know the form, the content and the structure that this new definition could take, but this is a very important task. In reflecting on the definition of the museum, we indeed reflect on the very nature of the institution to which we devote a large part of our professional or private lives. Such moments of reflection are rare for museum professionals, who are constantly being solicited for new projects – organizing exhibitions, new educational or conservation projects, fundraising activities, etc. Such moments are invaluable because they make it possible to re-situate all museum activities in the light of the museum’s most important issues. The role of ICOFOM in the reflection on the fundamental concepts of museology is old. Throughout its existence, our committee has focused on analyzing, discussing and proposing to the museum community reflections on the museum field’s most fundamental concepts. Thus, ICOFOM has developed a series of conferences on this theme since 2017. One of our objectives was to overco- me language barriers. While this publication is edited in English, most ICOM members are native speakers of other languages. Language structure influences thought. That is why ICOFOM wanted to encourage and enable museum professionals and museologists to discuss, in their own language, the terms used by the current ICOM definition. Our aim was to identify questionable or obsolete notions, but also to identify new notions or concepts that should be part of the definition. The first conference took place in Paris in June 2017, which was soon followed by conferences in Beijing (October), Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires and St Andrews (Scotland) (November), then the following year in Leuven (Belgium, January), Kaunas (Lithuania, June), Montreal and Moscow (May and October). The Southern New Hampshire University conference held in September took place in that context. The articles written for the Paris, Rio, Buenos Aires and St Andrews Conferences have already been the subject of two previous publications (Mairesse, 2017; Brulon, Brown & Nazor, 2018). I am particularly pleased that the third publication is devoted to the derived texts of the Southern New Hampshire University Symposium, organized by Yun Shun Susie Chung with the particularly dynamic and enthusiastic collaboration of other faculty members. The organization of an ICOFOM symposium in the United States was particularly pleasing to me. It should be noted, in fact, how much the United States has played a considerable role in defining the museum. The definition given by 12 Foreword George Brown Goode (1896), to which a few years later Benjamin Ives Gilman (1923) responded, could be recalled. Brown Goode already mentioned – perhaps because of his training skills, as he was specialized in ichthyology – the impor- tance of the environment to ensure the development of the museum: it is only when the latter plays an important role, in the eyes of the stakeholders, that it would be supported and financed in a coherent way. While Gilman’s comments were aimed primarily at asserting the nature of the art museum (a temple rather than a school), he was equally concerned about visitors and the conditions of their experience (Gilman was among the first museum specialists to actually survey visitors about their experiences).The place of visitors within the museum was from the beginning therefore a priority, much more so than on the old conti- nent, where the institution remained focused on the preservation and study of collections. The work of John Cotton Dana, which developed at the same time as that of Gilman, no doubt represents the most interesting illustration of this striking difference between some museums and in particular those promoted by Dana, affirming the social role of the museum within the community, the influence it can have on it, the “utility” that must be derived from it, but also the resulting funding. It is no coincidence that Dana, who centered on the use of collections through mediation or the preparation of really profitable exhibitions for all audiences, would be widely presented at the end of the twentieth century

Load more