2019 /08 /02
STUDIE/ARTICLES
THE ROLE OF Z. Z. STRÁNSKÝ IN PRESENT-DAY
MUSEOLOGY https://doi.org/10.5817/MuB2019-2-2
JAN DOLÁK
ABSTRACT/ABSTRAKT: KEYWORDS/KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA: opinions, which is understandable. In some cases we can find certain The demise of significant Czech museum – museology – misunderstandings or small museologist, associate professor Z. Z. Stránský – Marxism – mistakes in these texts. Therefore Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský, raised postmodernism I consider it necessary to analyse interest in his work and in its muzeum – muzeologie – the previous discourse, summarize competent evaluation. The authors Z. Z. Stránský – marxismus – the knowledge and thereby shift of individual texts mostly agree postmoderna the whole studied problem to with each other in their opinions, a higher level. In the core of this but sometimes they have different text I am dealing with reasons for views, which is understandable. The demise of significant Czech the rejection of Stránský’s concept However, several opinions museologist, associate professor rather than with its acceptance. clearly show that their authors Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský (26 misunderstood some of Stránský’s October 1926 – 21 January 2016), Most authors indeed consider fundamental postulates. This text raised an international interest Z. Z. Stránský a significant analyses the international discourse in his work and in its competent world-renowned museologist and and comments on disputable evaluation. One entire issue of they accept his approaches with statements. It explains, extends and the Brno journal Museologica major or minor reservations, in critically evaluates the concept by Brunensia (2/2016) was devoted the most cases only partially. Stránský, and thereby shifts the to the personality of Stránský, General accordance exists that whole studied problem to a higher and ICOFOM issued in Paris his ideas significantly influenced level. a whole collected volume Stránský: museology in former Eastern Bloc, uma ponte Brno – Brasil for the inclusive of Yugoslavia. His concept Místo Z. Z. Stránského v současné Federal University of Rio de penetrated on a limited scale to muzeologii Janeiro (UNIRIO). Stránský is Asia and only a bit also to Africa. particularly often mentioned in However, we could also mention Odchod významného českého the collective monograph A History Scandinavia or other countries. muzeologa docenta Zbyňka Zbyslava of Museology, which also was Stránský’s influence was relatively Stránského vyvolal mezinárodní published in Paris and was edited distinct in Switzerland (Martin zájem o jeho dílo, respektive by Bruno Brulon Soares. A series Schärer), in West Germany and o jeho zhodnocení. Autoři textů se of obituaries, texts and personal Austria, above all due to works ve většině svých tvrzení shodují, memories appeared in print. A brief of professor Friedrich Waidacher1 někdy mají odlišné názory, což je anthology of Stránský’s texts was zcela pochopitelné. Objevily se však published in French by François 1 Waidacher’s Handbuch der allgemeinen i názory svědčící o nepochopení Mairesse – Zbyněk Z. Stránský Museologie was translated into Slovak, Chinese, některých dosti podstatných et la muséologie: Une anthologie Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Hungarian, which undoubtedly considerably boosted the postulátů. Tento text mezinárodní (French Edition), with a foreword dissemination of Stránský’s approaches. Stránský, diskusi vyhodnocuje, sporná tvrzení by Bernard Deloche. The authors in my opinion, unfortunately spent too much time commenting on texts of his significant promoters komentuje. Vysvětluje, rozšiřuje of all these works count among (Waidacher, Schärer), who in fact were influential a kriticky vyhodnocuje Stránského recognised prominent members disseminators of his ideas, although they did it in their own style. Stránský’s review of the book pojetí, a tak celou zkoumanou of the international museological Die Ausstellung. Theorie und Exempel by Schärer problematiku posouvá na vyšší community. They agree with each consists much empty and critical philosophising, úroveň. other in many of their comments, but the reader learns in fact nothing about the content of this book, which, in my opinion, is but sometimes they have different a very good piece of writing. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Schärer, Martin R. Die Ausstellung: Theorie und Exempel. Museologica Brunensia, 2012, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 39–40.
15 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
from Graz and activity of publisher found the academic researcher the activities of ICOFOM and did Christian Müller-Straten from Z. Z. Stránský who established not use its production. This second Munich. Stránský’s influence in museology as a university subject “non-ICOFOM” stream, in my French-speaking countries (André and began to maintain appropriate opinion, is dominant today. Desvallées, Bernard Deloche) and in domestic and international Spain (J. Pedro Lorente) was rather contacts.4 Stránský’s museology thus Well, what is the present view on ambivalent. Quite positive was acquired a fundamental “genetic” the work of Z. Z. Stránský like? the response to Stránský in Latin defect. It arose “from below”, in Professor Peter van Mensch, who America. We can name for example contrast to the other sciences. When took an active part in the Brno professor Anaildo B. Freitas from geologists found animal fossils, Summer School of Museology Rio de Janeiro, who even defended they recognised the necessity (ISSOM) even before the fall of a doctoral thesis dedicated directly of establishing palaeontology. the Iron Curtain, has probably to the personality of Z. Z. Stránský. The initial broadly conceived rightly been considered the major Stránský’s influence in English- research into human past resulted expert in “eastern”6 museology. speaking world was negligible. in specialisation and emergence Still before Stránský’s demise he Museologists from these countries of archaeology, ethnology etc. correctly wrote that unlike the were familiar with his ideas but Historians cannot do without concept of musealisation, Stránský’s they mostly did not accept them an at least partial knowledge of concept of museality was not widely (Patrick Boylan, Gaynor Kavanagh,2 ethnology or archaeology. But accepted.7 We can add that the term Susan Pearce and others).3 which representative of present- musealisation became known due day social or natural sciences to Western European thinkers (e. g. Zbyněk Z. Stránský was one the needs the results of museological Hermann Lübbe) rather than by leading figures in museological research in his/her scientific Stránský’s effort. Stránský himself thinking which began to form in work? Stránský’s museology did not contradict this statement, Central Europe since about the mid- exhibited a sort of “insularism”; either. Van Mensch shifted the term -1960s, with significant contribution in Czechoslovakia it was totally “muzeality” into the history of of experts from Latin America but unconnected with culturology or museology,8 claiming that it would also from other parts of the world. cultural anthropology, which led only be suitable for a breakfast I will designate this “school” as to its frequent non-acceptance or to talk, moreover, one with a touch “Central European”, fully conscious opinions that it should only serve of nostalgia.9 The significant Dutch of some inaccuracy of this term. At as a sort of training for museum museologist bases his rejection that time, the Moravian Museum workers. Stránský’s museology has on a never published lecture held in Brno was directed by Jan not been “daughter” of some other by Stránský in Leiden in 1986, Jelínek – a visionary, who knew scientific discipline. which I consider insufficient from very well that museums must get a methodical perspective, and on rid of daily routine and be able to Stránský’s ideas gradually became Stránský’s text for the Summer look not only “into the showcase” more known and more accepted School of Museology in 1995.10 but also “above the showcase”. within ICOFOM. The 1980 ICOM He felt the need to apply general General Conference in Mexico was 6 I deliberately put the frequently encountered term “eastern” in quotation marks. This way it is methods of work in museums. partly devoted to “the systematic mainly used by colleagues from Western Europe. To make his ideas a reality, he and the theory of systems in As if the “east” began somewhere on the border between Germany and Bohemia and ended as museology”. In the early 1990s, a homogeneous area somewhere in Shanghai. Despite many mutual influences it would be 2 One of the few Brits who used the term ICOFOM formulated its mission: unnatural to mingle the Central European musealisation of an object. KAVANAGH, Gaynor. “establishing museology as a scientific (East European) approaches with the concept of Current Research in Museum Studies in Britain 5 discipline”. museology for example in Japan, India, China or and the Future Research Needs. Papers in Nevertheless, it must be on Taiwan. Museology, 1989, vol. 1, pp. 92–103. remarked that ICOFOM was by far MENSCH, Peter van. Museality at breakfast. 3 Peter van Mensch names correctly a British not ideologically heterogeneous and 7 The concept of museality in contemporary book, which in the passages about “museum its influence was not omnipresent. museological discourse. Museologica Brunensia, theory” mentions only English written sources, 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 14–19. while the “new museum theory” began for the Many influential and frequently authors only with the publishing of the book Peter cited museologists did not search 8 Ibidem, pp. 14–19. Vergo – New Museology in 1989. See MENSCH, 9 At a later time, van Mensch tempered a little his Peter van. Metamuseological challenges in the for the scholarly foundations of criticism and described it honestly as ambivalent. work of Zbyněk Stránský. Museologica Brunensia, museology, did not participate in MENSCH, Peter van. Metamuseological challenges 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 23. It might be a display of in the work of Zbyněk Stránský. Museologica cultural arrogance or only a “democratisation of 4 Speaking of this, we could ask the question how Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 18–26. geniality” (a concept by the contemporary Czech many visionaries lead the world museums today. philosopher Václav Bělohradský), i.e. a display of 10 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Museology. present self-confidence of many authors, who are 5 The 1989–1993 President of ICOFOM was Peter Introduction to Studies. Brno: Masaryk University writing anytime about anything. van Mensch. in Brno, 1995.
16 2019 /08 /02
Van Mensch wrote that the words communication, which addresses the the significant Czech philosopher “authentic”, “truth” and “eternal” society with an important message. Jan Patočka says. People were accepted neither in the West Its importance consists in the fact permanently evaluate something, nor in socialist countries. In the that it mostly deals with authentic they have direct experience with following part of the text he then evidence bearing the testimony of this process, but with the concept writes that the words “truth” truth, in contrast to the predominant of a value they in fact additionally and “eternal” do not belong to forms of non-authentic virtual try to explain why they prefer the vocabulary of present-day communication.”13 The discussion something over something else. museologists who do not strive for about various concepts of truth We often speak about values, but “right decisions”,11 knowing that in contemporary philosophy goes when we want to describe them, the heritage values are socially beyond the scope of this text, we must return to evaluation and constructed and situational. The but if we use the conception of define them by circle. Values thus definition of heritage, according J. Świecimski,14 then the object determine our evaluation. Patočka to van Mensch, is regarded as is “true” by itself, regardless of writes that sensory perception a collective participative enterprise, whether we interpret it correctly gives us the “life-relation of not as a museological scientific or not. The object itself is not objects” instead of “quality”.17 This work. interpretation. Through his life, philosophical approach is based on Stránský used terms like “authentic the acts of evaluation rather than Where does the fundamental evidence of reality” (undoubtedly on predefined values. A collection misunderstanding stem from? correct), which has some lasting object would thus also result from I think that the word “authentic” value.15 The term “lasting value” the acts of evaluation rather than should not generate any major is presently widely used e. g. with from predefined values. This problems. In time periods, which UNESCO documents. Peter van premise, in my opinion, does not are studied for example by Mensch is therefore absolutely right cast any fundamental doubt upon palaeontology, we do not know when he claims that the words Stránský’s conception and it could any objects other than authentic “eternal” and “truth” do not belong also comply with the concept by evidence (stones, sediments or to the vocabulary of present-day Peter van Mensch. fossils). What else might be more philosophers. However, they also authentic or more true? The never belonged to the vocabulary of We can safely prove that for example of palaeontology also Z. Z. Stránský. millennia, humans surround applies to other types of museum themselves with objects of cultural, objects. Peter van Mensch prefers, with not utilitarian significance. Why not reference to Australian approaches, term this significance (value, result And what about “eternal truths”? the term “significance” over the of evaluation) museality and why In the cited work for the Summer term “value”.16 Other authors not term the identification, selection School of Museology, Stránský write about the “quality of an and thesauration of these values used the word eternal in quotation object”, which I do not consider (significances)musealisation ? marks.12 In his 2005 monograph fundamental. However, we can Archeologie a muzeologie, I found accept the criticism of values from Although Stránský gradually the term “eternal truths” only one the perspective of phenomenology. particularised his concept of time and it was put in quotation Evaluation can be safely proved, museality, he never believed marks. The word truth itself (if but the values themselves prove to that an object per se has some I do not consider the quotes by be something secondary, something value. Each evaluation process is other authors) was used only like the “evaluation sediments”, as always exclusively connected with one time: “Museum exhibitions human activity and the scale of represent a specific visual form of 13 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Archeologie values is inevitably influenced by a muzeologie. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2005, individual or collective approaches, 11 The term “right decisions”, however, was not p. 135. introduced by Stránský but by Volker Schimpff which are changing more or less 14 ŚWIECIMSKI, Jerzy. Truth and Untruth in from East Germany. the Museum Exhibition. In TYMIENIECKA, frequently. Stránský’s museality is 12 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Museology. Anna-Teresa (ed.). New queries in aesthetics not a concept but merely a “name Introduction to Studies. Brno: Masaryk University and metaphysics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991, pp. in Brno, 1995, p. 39. In the Czech version of this 343–365. for something”. Humans thus take book, Stránský also used the term “eternal” in out objects from the universe e. g. 15 The term “lasting” does by far not mean quotation marks, but contraposed it to “early “eternal”. for scientific or aesthetical reasons, values”, which does not make sense in Czech language. Stránský elaborated the whole passage 16 MENSCH, Peter van. Museality at breakfast. of the book very carelessly. See STRÁNSKÝ, The concept of museality in contemporary 17 PATOČKA, Jan. Přirozený svět jako filozofický Zbyněk Zbyslav. Muzeologie. Úvod do studia. Brno: museological discourse. Museologica Brunensia, problém. Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1992, Masarykova univerzita v Brně, 1995, p. 37. 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 18. p. 102.
17 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
for reason of personal experience a “relationship” discipline, dealing is an authentic piece of evidence associated with these objects, etc. above all with the relationships of in optimal position for being Stránský called this evaluation of people to objects. The considered communicated. This is the role of objects by humans “museality”. creation of a thesaurus is an a museologist within the primary It is therefore a summarising exclusively museological activity museum selection. term, a superior concept from the and its transfer into the sphere terminological perspective. Nothing of specialised sciences employed I see a well-built museum collection less, but also nothing more. It is in museums or into the mere as a system, more precisely as hard to expect that this term will “participatory level of society” a structure, which is similar to evolve somehow, as Stránský is would be quite foolish. If a curator language.19 It must be continuously blamed for by several museologists. of some national technical museum evaluated; in other words, it is Mere study of museality of course (professional – not participator!) necessary to find out whether or cannot be subject of an independent would collect only passenger cars not particular objects belong to the science. I believe that the concept and no lorries he would not be collection. For these processes I use of museality should be studied amateur from the perspective the term secondary selection. from other perspectives than many of technical sciences, but from We can say that a well- museologists do. Museality of an the viewpoint of museology.18 -structured collection “shouts”: object cannot be simplified to the Such approach can be applied Here is an empty place. Or, vice statement “has” or “has not”. Each by a private collector, but not versa: Here is an overabundance and every object has some degree of by a museum professional who of something. We surely would museality. However, a museologist, strives to document and present find many other reasons for the or rather museum worker, is the “world of production and use necessity of museological thinking working with objects which bear the of cars” in the given country. I do in the process of selection, but most distinct museality at a given not cast doubt upon positive and it seems as if Stránský in his moment. A museologist in the sometimes required participatory texts and performances gave process of selection mostly does not methods, but they must inevitably precedence to museology over recognise museality or its extent. be limited somehow (by somebody). specialised disciplines in the A museologist on an archaeological Absolutisation of these approaches process of selection. “The qualities or palaeontological site has not would unavoidably lead to distinct which change a normal object into the slightest idea what is more weakening of sciences employed in a museum item can only be identified and what is less valuable. When museums. with the use of methods specific to a museologist examines a photo of museology.”20 This ambitiousness a significant statesman and tries Stránský liked to give an example, often led to lack of understanding to find out whether it is ordinary where a shop with complete among the branch specialists and or valuable, he does not apply original equipment from before their non-acceptance and rejection museological methods but methods the WW2 was discovered in Brno. of museology. of historical research. The same The selection-making ethnologist is true of any object on the shelf took a tool for slicing cabbage and Peter van Mensch finished his in a depository – a specialist must the art historian took a decorative contribution in Museologica tell the museologist what is more signboard hanging above the Brunensia with a sigh that Stránský valuable, more significant, and what counter. Both objects should have wasted a lot of energy proving that is not. Nevertheless, this does not been added to museum collections. museology is a science. A simple reject museology as such because Stránský, unlike the others, question arises in this regard: And museology is a final discipline. suggested to take the whole shop what else should he have been A political scientist is no profound and add it to museum collections. In occupied with? Should universities expert in history, but he cannot do this case again, Stránský (from the be engaged in science or should without this knowledge when he museological perspective) did not they only turn into a training centre constructs the theories of political pay attention to values of individual for practice? systems, parties etc. An ecologist objects in this shop. They were is no profound expert in beetles quite worthless from the viewpoint or vertebrates, but on the basis of of ethnology or history of art. knowledge from other disciplines However, Stránský recognised that 19 DOLÁK, Jan. Thing in Museum. Museum he studies the relationships the shop equipment is of a unique Collection as Structure. Studia Slavica et Balcanica between animals and plants and significance as a whole and that it Petropolitana, 2018, no. 2, pp. 25–35. their environment. Therefore 20 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology. Introduction to Studies. Brno: Masaryk University in Brno, I also regard museology as 18 The example is taken from a Czech museum. 1995, p. 19.
18 2019 /08 /02
The influence of Stránský on Latin A well-founded overview of by him in 196532 at the latest, when America, which is said to have risen acceptance, but also non-acceptance he did not yet know the works by after 1989, is competently evaluated and misunderstanding of Stránský’s Waidacher and Popper. by Professor Tereza Scheiner21 ideas is offered by Professor from Rio de Janeiro. She correctly Markus Walz26 from Leipzig. The Biedermann also claims: “Without remarks that his approaches were accordances and differences in required logical falsification of used by several authors to defend the approaches of Stránský and Stránský’s theories, which would be the positions of the so-called new Waidacher are addressed by necessary in recourse to K. Popper, museology or sociomuseology, with Bernadette Biedermann.27 The the assumption that the knowledge which Stránský’s ideas were not article from this recognised system developed by Stránský does “directly linked”. Scheiner writes Austrian museologist is a little not meet the requirements of an that Stránský was influenced by unclear in the following passage: “As academic discipline remains an phenomenology and partly also by he (Stránský) argues, it corresponds unverified thesis.”33 dialectical materialism. We can add to the epistemological basis of that Stránský sometimes mentioned a ´scientific discipline´ which has not Now we leave aside the fundamental the works by M. Heidegger on yet been falsified.”28 Biedermann difference between Popper’s a general level, but he based himself refers thereby to a work of authors falsification and the (un)verified minimally on E. Husserl, J. Patočka, from the French-speaking area,29 in thesis. I have already dealt with R. Ingarden etc. Stránský used which, however, I found neither the analysis of critical attitudes of “phenomenon” in a general sense the word falsification nor the name many philosophers (e. g. O. Neurath, of the word, but not in terms of of Karl Popper. Biedermann also T. S. Kuhn, P. Feyerabend, J. Heřt, phenomenology. Tereza Scheiner writes that “Taking into account Z. Neubauer) to Karl Popper’s also notices minute differences K. R. Popper’s scientific epistemology approaches,34 therefore we will cite in the concept of museality by of falsification Stránský concluded only the Czech philosophy professor Stránský and by Gregorová. “In that, in an academic discipline, Břetislav Horyna: “In social and Gregorová, it is a specific relation neither the museum nor the museum cultural sciences and in humanities, between man and reality, in Stránský, objects could be object of investigation whose structure is more or less it is a specific relation of man to in museology.”30 and that Stránský narrative, the seemingly absolutely reality (our emphasis).”22 I believe studied Popper’s works for the rational requirement for falsification that neither Anna Gregorová nor first time in a private library of his can only hardly be applied. The the translators of her article into friend Friedrich Waidacher. The theories emerging in this type of English and French have considered truth is that Stránský personally sciences can only be determined by these differences. met Waidacher for the first time language, because historical events, in 1980,31 but the premise that social phenomena or literary stories The influence of Stránský on the museum is not the object of cannot be adequately communicated Spanish museology has been museology was already pronounced with the help of mathematical or studied by Francisca Hernández and logical formulas. The efforts for J. Pedro Lorente,23 the influence a ´rigid science´, which are expressed on Russian museology then by a science. Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, by implementing the methods of no. 2, pp. 82–84. Anna Leshchenko24 and Maria exact sciences in humanities with 25 26 WALZ, Markus. Too Early, Too late: The Gubarenko. Relevance of Zbyněk Stránský for German the aim to raise the semblance of Museology. Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, higher scientism, usually result in no. 2, pp. 44–50. 21 SCHEINER, Tereza. Beyond the museum: formulation of empty scientistic Museologies and Meta(?)theories. Notes on the 27 BIEDERMANN, Bernadette. The Theory 35 contribution of Z. Z. Stránský for Latin-American of Museology. Museology as It Is – Defined By or technicistic ideals.” The main thinking. In SOARES, Bruno. B. and Anaildo Two Pioneers: Zbyněk Z. Stránský and Friedrich B. BARAÇAL (eds.). Stránský: A bridge Brno – Waidacher. Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, 32 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Předmět muzeologie. Brazil. Paris: ICOFOM, 2017, pp. 73–86. no. 2, pp. 51–64. In STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z (ed.). Sborník materiálů 22 Ibidem, p. 85. 28 Ibidem, pp. 51–52. prvého muzeologického sympozia Brno – 1965. Brno: Moravské muzeum v Brně, 1966, pp. 30–33. 23 HERNÁNDEZ, Francisca and Pedro 29 DESVALLÉES, André and François MAIRESSE. J. LORENTE. Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský and Key concepts of Museology. Paris: Armand Colin, 33 BIEDERMANN, Bernadette. The Theory Spanish Museology. Museologica Brunensia, 2016, 2010. of Museology. Museology As It Is – Defined by vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 37–43. Two pioneers: Zbyněk Z. Stránský and Friedrich 30 BIEDERMANN, Bernadette. The Theory Waidacher. Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, 24 LESHCHENKO, Anna. Metamuseology and of Museology. Museology As It Is – Defined By no. 2, p. 59. Museological Discourse. In SOARES, Bruno B. and Two pioneers: Zbyněk Z. Stránský and Friedrich Anaildo B. BARAÇAL (eds.). Stránský: A bridge Waidacher. Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, 34 DOLÁK, Jan. Karl Popper a muzeologie: Brno – Brazil. Paris: ICOFOM, 2017, pp. 130–143. no. 2, p. 54. mezi objektem a muzeálií. Muzeológia a kultúrne dedičstvo, 2018, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 7–17. 25 GUBARENKO, Maria. Czech-Russian 31 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Irreplaceable One. On (Czechoslovak-Soviet) cooperation in the field The Demise of Zbyněk Z. Stránský. Museologica 35 HORYNA, Břetislav. Teorie vědy. Úvodní of formation and development of museology as Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 75. poznámky. In HORYNA, Břetislav and Josef KROB
19 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
reason why Popper’s concept (F. Capra) etc. At the end of his impact on him. He often referred loses relevance is the linguistic professional career, Stránský tended to the theory of memes, to Rupert heterogeneity of social sciences. to postmodernism, which “surpasses Sheldrake, Susan Blackmore,44 Popper’s approach is thus not that the limitations of modern thought, sympathized with the so-called all saving as the currently most but is still too feeble for humanity to alternative museology of his wife widespread opinion among the lean on it”.39 “Post-modern thought Edita Stránská, etc. Stránský scientific community says. Therefore is against strict limitations imposed frequently brought these authors it is true that Stránský did not to the concepts of different sciences together in a sort of mixture, which succeed in falsifying his theories, and prefers ´blurred contours´ to put a less knowledgeable reader might but at the same time we must add through alternative approaches. This have perceived as highly theoretical, that he never tried to do so and it is highly important for the formation but in fact, it was rather eclectic. also would not be possible. of museology and for its position, According to Mairesse, “his speeches because it has been for too a long sometimes appeared like a kind of The museologist Hildegard Vieregg time limited by neopositivistic armour shamanistic experience enhanced from Munich wrote that Prague and judged by other sciences from the by secret formulas”.45 Vladimír and Brno had created museology positivistic point of view.”40 Podborský also believes that the use “on a socialistic (Marxist-Leninist) of a strange “metalanguage” was source”.36 She also remarks that it In associate professor Stránský one of the reasons why Stránský is not clear on which philosophic we can observe a significant was not accepted by the Czech foundations Stránský has proceeded. shift in his theoretical thinking. academic community.46 She mentions the influence of First he tried to sharply define Morris and Schopenhauer,37 which and establish museology as an A specific view is offered by should be explained in more detail. independent science, to separate the museologist Bruno Brulon Anyway, only few philosophical it within humanities. Late in life, Soares47 from Rio de Janeiro. systems were so far away from on the contrary, he even tended He considers the approaches Marxism like the irrationalism and to some kind of cognitive science, of Stránský as a “zero point” pessimism of Arthur Schopenhauer. interconnecting various disciplines within the systematic thinking in We can add that Stránský was into a single science studying the museology, but casts doubt upon educated at the university by cognitive processes. He searched the museality as a “relationship of man people who were not affected by way almost as far as to the “Theory to reality”. According to Soares, Marxism, so that he did not know of Everything” or the “Final it is a wrong separation of man it in depth. Stránský formulated Theory”,41 in which museology from reality and a prerequisite to his opinions by his own, we might would play a significant or even existence of material reality, which say a philosophical, way and used leading role, something like deus is separated from society. These are various ideas, partly also eclectic, ex machine.42 Most of the other two sociological mistakes, which which were suitable for justification theoreticians proceeded in opposite we should avoid in museology, of his approaches. Mainly at the direction, that is from theory of Soares says. Museology should end of his scholarly career, he wrote the discipline towards solving the concentrate on a wide spectrum and lectured with pleasure about practical problems. of associations between various the necessity of new paradigms38 in agents rather than on the study science and therewith also in social Stránský verbally criticised the structure, but he was also able to sloppy work in science43 and he 44 S. Blackmore acquired her PhD in the field of parapsychology. See Susan Blackmore. In defend museology with the help of did not admire movements like Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [online]. [accessed holistic approaches, particle physics New Age, but some changes had 2019-12-04]. Available from www:
20 2019 /08 /02
of relations. Soares claims that is “museology without attributes”. of Stránský’s conception,53 which the breach between a subject and On the whole, it is logical because he reproaches for a low theoretical object is fabricated by a particular we also speak first of archaeology, level and ahistoricism. Nevertheless, appropriation of reality, and with history or ethnology and only Gluziński disliked most the reference to Victor Turner he writes subsequently we specify these concept of museality, claiming about the “museum performance”. names by adjectives, such as that museology as a science of Cultural performances are thus processual, prehistoric or aerial museality would be a science of always connected with real events, archaeology. fiction. Gluziński asks whether but they are rather “magical this theoretical concept is also mirrors of social reality”. It means The prominent French museologist subordinate to observation concepts that they are not reflective but François Mairesse concisely and whether the whole construction reflexive, and this statement is writes that today’s museology of museality is perhaps not an well acceptable. Soares does not is not perceived as the “idea of empty name and he blames Stránský perceive museums as the object of the discipline but rather a field of for a lack of observation. Evident museology,48 either. He accepts to research and practices, as developed here is the influence of Rudolf a considerable extent Stránský’s in the Anglo-Saxon logic (e. g. Carnap. It is also worth mentioning metatheoretical approaches and Leicester in UK) that dominates”.51 that Carnap gradually mitigated finds the way, evidently under Here I see the fundamental problem: his radical statements, whereas the influence of P. Bourdieu, in there is as good as no interest in Gluziński worked with his 1935 the so-called reflexive museology. Stránský and his theories but it does book Philosophy and Logical Syntax, According to Soares, Stránský was not mean that the development goes that is with early (and very radical) limited by the western perception the right way. Carnap. While Carnap strived for of the “man-reality” relationship.49 a unified language of all sciences In his division of museology Criticism of Stránský from the the neo-Kantian philosophers, into normative, theoretical viewpoint of philosophy for example Heinrich Rickert, and reflexive, Soares counts based themselves on the idea of Stránský among leading figures in The critics of Stránský have a fundamental difference between normative museology50 and among undoubtedly based themselves on natural and so-called spiritual structuralists. In this he is right their own knowledge, including sciences, with which we are more when we understand structuralism their possible education in familiar in terminological regard. as the opposite to analytic philosophy, sociology, anthropology Gluziński does not accept the three approaches. Structuralism thus etc. Detailed description of all elements of museology by Stránský: turns the attention from analytical concepts goes beyond the scope of theory of selection, thesauration examination of individual elements this text. However, Stránský also and presentation, and emphasizes and components (mainly language) had a loud critic in the so-called only two main aspects (components) to the study of their mutual “socialist camp”, namely Wojciech of museology – materialisation of relations and roles within the whole Gluziński (1922–2017) from the world (in fact selection) and system. Stránský often cited the Poland, who has been considered, communication, which I respect. significant Czech structuralist Jan side by side with Stránský, the The middle function, inserted by Mukařovský. most significant philosophising Stránský – thesauration – does museologist in Central Europe. not play any significant role from It is necessary to remind that Gluziński devoted the major part a theoretical point of view. Stránský Stránský always wanted to establish of his fundamental work U podstaw rightly reminds that in this phase museology as a normal science, that muzeologii52 to the critical analysis the collection objects enter new relationships, build up a collection, 51 MAIRESSE, François. What is Zbyněk and we can see whether or not they 48 François Mairesse also writes in this regard Z. Stránský’s “influence” on museology? that the communication science exists but belong to one another. However, Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 32. “mobilephonology” does not. MAIRESSE, François. in fact it is still a selective process, What is Zbyněk Z. Stránský´s “influence” on 52 GLUZIŃSKI, Wojciech. U podstaw muzeologii. museology? Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydavnictwo Naukowe, something that I term “second no. 2, p. 29. 1980. 451 p. The book was published and selection”. The other activities distributed under the declared state of emergency 49 It would be worth mentioning what Soares in Poland. It is hardly accessible in libraries, understands under the term “non-western even those in Poland. It is often mentioned but perception” and what he himself accepts from this reference to classics of Marxism, but many only rarely cited in museological literature. It concept. references to philosophers of the “Vienna Circle” was never translated and I believe that due to or to Umberto Eco. 50 SOARES, Bruno B. Museology, building its complicated philosophic language it was read bridges. In SOARES, Bruno B. (ed.). A history of by very few foreign museologists, including the 53 In more detail on the concept of Gluziński: Museology: Key authors of museological theory. native Slavic-speaking colleagues. It is worth DOLÁK, Jan. Teoretická podstata muzeologie. Brno: Paris: ICOFOM, 2019, pp. 17–40. mentioning that the book contains not a single Technické muzeum v Brně, 2019, pp. 37–50.
21 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
within thesauration (recording, by him. Burcaw rejects museology Marxism-Leninism lost much of its storage, conservation, etc.) have of the Eastern Bloc and considers credibility”.58 museographic rather than truly it a “fictitious problem generated by museological relevance. Interesting those who love theorising”. Burcaw I wrote about the so-called is that Stránský never entered into shows a very sceptical attitude “new museology” and “critical a serious dispute with Gluziński. towards documentation of the museology” recently,59 therefore Perhaps he did not want to weaken present outside of Sweden and of I will concentrate now on the the position of “his” museology countries of the Eastern Bloc. He so-called “Marxist-Leninist” or he even did not dare to begin further writes: “Whether or not museology. Peter van Mensch is a controversy with the erudite Pole. museology is considered a science, right when he says that museums When we compare the approaches it has little significance beyond the in the Eastern Bloc were part of the of both these leading figures in scope of materialistic philosophy ideological apparatus of the political Central European museology, and maybe also beyond the political regime. The description of several we must say that they represent systems which are based on this events (“Great October Socialist one and the same stream of philosophy.” However, Burcaw Revolution”) or personalities museological thinking. Both of them sympathetically pleads in favour (V. I. Lenin) was a mere credo, reject museum as an instrumentally of the worldwide unified one“ a confession of faith. Permanent organisational, technical component general profession and one general exhibitions, for example those (facility), as the object of museology museology”.55 Stránský surely would focused on the Middle Ages, were studies. Gluziński sees the object agree, the same way as André far less affected by ideology, and of museology in a museum as an Desvallées, who writes that “in the the exhibitions devoted to nature (unchanging) abstraction. According committee of museology, it could only or technology almost completely to Gluziński, museum is a “material exist one single museology, neither lacked this aspect. However, the objectification of consciousness”. old nor new”.56 It is evident that selection of topics of museum I tightly believe that between all three prominent museologists activity and their presentation, the the “material objectification of regarded the unified museology as decision about what good and what consciousness” (Gluziński) and something totally different. In his bad happened in the past absolutely a “museality-bearing object” 1992 doctoral theses, van Mensch does not correspond to theoretical (Stránský) we can almost put an defines three “schools of thought”: postulates of museology. To put it in equality sign. simple words: museology is not the 1. The Marxist-Leninist, in which study of museum practice, although Museology influenced by the museum is an ideological we must admit that it would be Marxism? instrument; difficult to find any clear dividing 2. New museology, which is line between these terms. One of the reasons for non- dissatisfied with museum praxis and -acceptance of Stránský’s ideas has seeks a way out in the Heritage as What is in fact Marxism? It is taken place on the background a whole; an ideological system based on of a politically divided world. 3. Critical museology, which poses class struggles, rigid materialism Stránský was sometimes considered questions and then seeks adequate and atheism. Marx was one of a representative of Marxism in answers for them.57 the first who criticised some social sciences. His museology was of the older, quite optimistic regarded as a system of rigid rules, Van Mensch also writes later that opinions, e. g. those of the late as something that restrains freedom after the break-up of the Eastern 18th century French philosophers. in the free world. One of the loud Bloc, “museology inspired by His “destructive” approaches thus critics of Stránský was George cannot be completely rejected. Ellis Burcaw,54 who criticised the Marx’s “constructive” approaches, so-called “lexicon of Brno” from on the other hand, were entirely the viewpoint of terminology. All misleading. His intentional system 55 BURCAW, George Ellis. Basic paper. ICOFOM English terms that were unknown Study Series: Methodology of museology and leading to classless society, whose to this American were thus professional training, 1983, vol. 1, p. 11. automatically considered incorrect 56 SOARES, Bruno B. Museology, Building the 58 MENSCH, Peter van. Metamuseological Bridges. In SOARES, Bruno. B. (ed.). A history of challenges in the work of Zbyněk Stránský. museology: Key authors of museological theory. Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 19. 54 BURCAW, George Ellis. Comments on MuWoP Paris: ICOFOM, 2019, p. 31. no. 1. Museological Working Papers – MuWoP: 59 DOLÁK, Jan. Sběratelství a sbírkotvorná Interdisciplinary in Museology, 1981, no. 2, pp. 57 Adopted also by Ivo Maroević, surprisingly činnost muzeí. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského 83–85; BURCAW, George Ellis. Basic paper. without critical analysis. MAROEVIĆ, Ivo. v Bratislavě, 2018. 143 p.; DOLÁK, Jan. Kritika ICOFOM Study Series: Methodology of museology Introduction to Museology – the European Approach. kritické muzeologie. Muzeológia a kultúrne and professional training, 1983, vol. 1, pp. 10–17. München: Verlag Müller-Straten, 1998, p. 92. dedičstvo, 2016, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 21–33.
22 2019 /08 /02
existence was determined by the Stránský influenced many authors began to ease their bad conscience slogan “from each according to from different continents, I do not and former colonies began to claim his ability, to each according to dare to label any of them a Marxist. their real as well as their putative his needs”, is an eschatology and Stránský surely could not be the rights. The high-developed world a sort of religion. But Stránský most significant propagator of searched for differences rather than never wrote about such things. Marxism in museology worldwide. for accordance, which we can see Stránský was not Marxist,60 which in our everyday life as a limitless he defended e. g. on the pages However, Stránský also had admiration of everything different, of Museum Aktuell.61 We find opponents within the so-called as an unbounded desire for a collected volume edited by socialist camp. The loudest among (proclaimed?) otherness. The stream Stránský, which begins with them was Klaus Schreiner from of museological thinking, which a quote by V. I. Lenin, but the East Germany. At that time he was I not very exactly call “Central content of the collected volume in fact right when he claimed that European”, encountered a totally has nothing in common with Stránský’s concept was affected different way of thinking and totally Marxism. In his 1984 university by “bourgeois idealistic values”.65 If different concept of science. When textbook62 Stránský cites a treatise we would use the then Marxist- we use a comparison with literature, by V. I. Lenin: “a glass beaker is not Leninist terminology, dividing then we can say that until the only a glass cylinder and drinking all philosophical streams into 1990s, Stránský represented vessel, but it has other countless materialistic and idealistic and enlightenment and classicism. The properties, qualities, aspects, mutual subsequently into agnostic and present-day museological production relations etc.”. We can only hardly Gnostic, Stránský undoubtedly is for the most part romantic, find any arguments against this would be an idealist. His constantly putting emphasis on individualism, statement.63 Until 1989, Stránský floating values (museality) are not experience and fantasy. surely had to manoeuvre between materialistic, but he was Gnostic the Possible and the Allowed by rather than agnostic. Fundamental Major part of the world was official authorities. He never forgot problems of acceptance or non- concerned about a low impact of to cite other museologists from the -acceptance of Stránský’s museums on the public and reacted so-called socialist camp, in order to approaches thus did not take place to socio-political changes after 1960 evidence that the experts in other on the Marxism – non-Marxism by development of the so-called allied countries also cope with line. They took place in different “new museums”, accentuating the similar problems. Most valuable in thinking concepts. social functions of museums. This this regard were for him the authors concept was in most cases successful from the Soviet Union, mainly Museology in captivity of and brought new knowledge Avram Moiseevich Razgon.64 If modernism and postmodernism to museology. This knowledge, however, did not disprove the 60 According to professor Podborský, Stránský Approximately since the beginning “old” or “traditional” postulates, was anticommunist by nature and after 1968 it only extended museology. This he was sometimes considered cosmopolitan of the 1970s we have experienced by the official authorities. However, defending here the emergence of a new opinion is by far not new; it was museology and his own person, Stránský way of thinking and world always advocated by both Stránský had to do many compromising steps, which 66 did not become really evident in his works, perception, which J. F. Lyotard and Waidacher. If we accept the but rather in his performances at university, named postmodernism. Science in widespread opinion on the onset wherefore some considered him an exponent of the communist regime. After PODBORSKÝ, West Europe and North America of “new museums”, then we can Vladimír. Moje vzpomínky na docenta PhDr. launched a new direction. Great say with only a small exaggeration Zbyňka Z. Stránského (26. 10. 1926–21. 1. 2016). Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. narratives began to be doubted that “new museology” was never 85 – 87. (first the world religions, later also established. The collapse of the 61 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Ist Museologie eine other issues), minority votes were Soviet Bloc occurred in a period kommunistische Wissenschaft? Museum Aktuell, preferred, repeated deconstruction when several significant figures in April 2001, pp. 58–61. My gratitude for the kindly providing of this article goes to dr. Bernadette was demanded, former colonialists museology passed away (Razgon Biedermann. 1989, Rússio 1990, Schreiner 1990, 62 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Úvod do studia Marxism-Leninism. Borrowed from LESHCHENKO, Mikhailovskaya 1992) or went muzeologie. Brno: UJEP, 1984, p. 92. Anna. Avram M. Razgon. In SOARES, Bruno B. gradually into retirement. Stránský 63 This work by Lenin is not referenced in the (ed.). A history of museology: Key authors of successfully defended his post at list of literature. I do not regard it as an expression museological theory. Paris: ICOFOM, 2019, pp. of Stránský’s “resistance” but rather as a display of 90–91. the university, but he was “old, his frequent carelessness. 65 More in MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. Wie 64 In 1971, Razgon instigated the founding of in der DDR Museologie gemacht wurde: Die 66 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der the Institute for Museum Science in West Berlin. kommunistische Abrechnung mit Z. Z. Stránský. Allgemeinen Museologie. Wien: Böhlau, 1993, pp. We can hardly imagine that this institute fostered Museum Aktuell, Juli–August 2005, pp. 40–41. 142–143.
23 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
theoretical and eastern”. Former Francophone museology, on the practicality”. Gluziński is right in Eastern Bloc, on the other hand, other hand, is focused on different claiming that an error is made when wanted to be “young, practical and issues. An interesting reflection we think that a theory which serves western”. As François Mairesse comes from the museologist Milan the practice should be the theory said: the world shifted from Hegel’s Popadić68 from Belgrade, who casts of practice. It means that the best idealism over English empiricism to doubt even upon the subtitle of the theory for practice is not the theory American pragmatism.67 fundamental work by Maroević – of practice! The “theory of practice” his book Introduction to Museology: cannot stimulate progress. Gluziński A widespread opinion exists that the European Approach. Popadić adds: “the stagnation of productive many sciences were at least partly asks whether something like practices transferred by means of such plunged into a crisis since about European approach exists at all. types of knowledge from generation to the 1970s. Museology would in this As if the iron curtain between the generation is well known in history”.70 regard indeed be one of the “leading eastern (theoretical) and western Museology thus does not have sciences”. The truly scientific (practical) museology also existed in pretensions to replace anything methods – deduction, induction, contemporary research. or anybody. We absolutely do not abduction, experimental research pursue the removal of museum etc. – are applied only rarely in Stránský: to follow or not? specialists and their replacement museology. The unbounded desire of by “omniscient” museologists. most museologists for “novelty” and I base myself on the idea that Museology is an “added value” “originality for any price” results in the science called culturology is for the museum worker or for the accumulation of words, not ideas. dealing with general problems of employee of a memory institution. I would call the vast majority of human culture. This research also Nothing more, but also nothing present-day museological production comprises study of museum culture, less. Stránský never saw any eternal by the term “impressionology”. which is the domain of museology. truth in museum objects, which Museology thus studies museum means that museality does not It must be emphasized that Stránský culture in both synchronic and represent their fixed quality. Quite never pursued “rigid rules” in the diachronic aspects, its creation and the opposite. Values are changing topics of the museum discourse. He use. Museum culture has never and they are given to objects did not deal with the question of been connected only with the by people or by human society, whether the museums should prefer organisation (institution) which is respectively. The collections thus a bug, locomotive, history of World called museum. are not and will never be a mirror, War II or gender problems. Stránský but mere reflection of the history tried to weave a net, which is then The present dispute is not about of society or nature. Then we can thrown on a problem and it has to whether we adopt a major or minor talk about the relationship of man function, no matter what we put part from Stránský’s concept. It does to reality (Stránský), but maybe also into the mesh – a bug, feminism or not consist in endless arguments about reflexivity (Soares) or about a locomotive. However, weaving about whether a museum object that “the discursive construction of such a net is little interesting has a value, significance or quality. heritage is itself part of the cultural today, even though the situation Museology cannot be stuck in never- and social practices that are heritage” already begins to change. Stránský ending epistemological self- (Smith).71 strived to grasp the fundamental -definitions and methodological principles of museology, which manifestations. The calling for So, what are the tasks of today’s then must be (almost) identical a clearly unified terminology museology? To finish the creation all over the world. Following throughout the world is in vain.69 and then further develop the the example of other sciences Let us talk about the general own theoretical foundations of (e. g. sociology or philosophy) direction of museology. In other the discipline. To examine the we probably might suppose the words, let us decide whether we will changing position of museums in existence of “museologies of foster museology as a theoretical contemporary society. To study linguistic areas”, which Stránský study on general principles of 70 GLUZIŃSKI, Wojciech. Remarks on the would not undoubtedly agree with. museum culture, or whether we condition of museology in the light of its relation Anglophone museology, influenced will veer towards the “saving to developmental phenomena. Questions to by pragmatism, thus prefers the which we look for answers. ICOFOM Study Series: Museology and Museums, 1987, vol. 12, pp. solution of practical questions, 68 POPADIĆ, Milan. The origin and legacy of the 108–119. concept of museality. Voprosy muzeologii, 2017, 71 Borrowed from MENSCH, Peter van. Museality vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 3–12. 67 MAIRESSE, François. Museology at at breakfast. The concept of museality in a crossroads. Museologica Brunensia, 2015, vol. 4, 69 How is the unified terminology in today’s contemporary museological discourse. Museologica no. 2, p. 5. philosophy or sociology? Brunensia, 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 19.
24 2019 /08 /02
museum culture from a diachronic study attracts so many wiseacres. It pp. 25–35. ISSN 1995-848X. https://doi. and synchronic perspective. To is the easier because where is a lack org/10.21638/spbu19.2018.202 study the general principles of of exhausting scientific analysis DOLÁK, Jan. Teoretická podstata muzeologie. museum communication, including and solid theoretical foundations, Brno: Technické muzeum v Brně, 2019. the use of the most modern everybody finds an open space for 176 p. ISBN 978-80-87896-67-9. technologies. To implement the unlimited creation of not always GLUZIŃSKI, Wojciech. Problemy research results of contemporary correct and usually absolutely współczesnego muzealnictwa. Roczniki pedagogy and psychology in the baseless ideas.”72 Etnografii Śląskiej, 1963, no. 2, pp. museum practice, etc. Stránský’s 178–230. conclusions can be beneficial for GLUZIŃSKI, Wojciech. U podstaw all of these areas. Nevertheless, REFERENCES: muzeologii. Warszawa: Państwowe museology must get rid of the Wydavnictwo Naukowe, 1980. 451 p. ballast which was brought to BIEDERMANN, Bernadette. The Theory of ISBN 83-01-02103-09. the discipline partly by Stránský Museology. Museology As It Is – Defined GLUZIŃSKI, Wojciech. Remarks on the himself (and by his contemporaries) By Two Pioneers: Zbyněk Z. Stránský condition of museology in the light of its late in life, but mainly by his and Friedrich Waidacher. Museologica relation to developmental phenomena. successors. The compound Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 51–64. Questions to which we look for answers. production containing the word ISSN 1805-4722. https://doi.org/10.5817/ ICOFOM Study Series: Museology and “museology” is immense. Even MuB2016-2-6 Museums, 1987, vol. 12, pp. 108–119. so immense that most of us are BURCAW, George Ellis. Comments on GUBARENKO, Maria. Czech-Russian only surfing within, instead of MuWoP no. 1. Museological Working (Czechoslovak-Soviet) cooperation in embracing the whole extent of the Papers –MuWoP: Interdisciplinary in the field of formation and development problem. However, about 90 % of Museology, 1981, no. 2, pp. 83–85. of museology as a science. Museologica this production are dealing with BURCAW, George Ellis. Basic paper. Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 82–84. museum practice and museums, not ICOFOM Study Series: Methodology of ISSN 1805-4722. with museology. If somebody writes museology and professional training, HERNÁNDEZ, Francisca and Pedro about museums and somebody else 1983, vol. 1, pp. 10–17. J. LORENTE. Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský writes about museology (general DESVALLÉES, André and François and Spanish Museology. Museologica problems of museum culture), MAIRESSE. Key concepts of Museology. Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 37–43. then we do not put the authors in Paris: Armand Colin, 2010. 83 p. ISSN 1805-4722. https://doi.org/10.5817/ a position good – bad, but rather ISBN 978-2-200-25398-1. MuB2016-2-4 in a position different – different. DOLÁK, Jan. Kritika kritické muzeologie. HORYNA, Břetislav. Teorie vědy. Úvodní About 5 % of the texts pretend Muzeológia a kultúrne dedičstvo, 2016, poznámky. In HORYNA, Břetislav museology. Such an author begins vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 21–33. ISSN 1339-2204. and Josef KROB (eds.). Cesty k vědě. with a quotation of his favourite DOLÁK, Jan. Karl Popper a muzeologie: Jak správně myslet a psát. Olomouc: philosopher, the Germans do not mezi objektem a muzeálií. Muzeológia Nakladatelství Olomouc, 2007, pp. 127– forget Heidegger or Hegel, the a kultúrne dedičstvo, 2018, vol. 6, no. 2, 128. ISBN 978-80-7182-223-3. authors from Romanic countries will pp. 7–17. ISSN 1339-2204. KAVANAGH, Gaynor. Current Research prefer Foucault, Bourdieu, Latour or DOLÁK, Jan. Sběratelství a sbírkotvorná in Museum Studies in Britain and Derrida, the authors focused on art činnost muzeí. Bratislava: Univerzita the Future Research Needs. Papers in science will surely mention Crimp Komenského v Bratislavě, 2018. 143 p. Museology, 1989, vol. 1, pp. 92–103. or Malraux. These authors will soon ISBN 978-80-223-4553-8. ISSN 1103-0100. go over to a traditional “case study”, DOLÁK, Jan. Thing in Museum. Museum LESHCHENKO, Anna. Metamuseology and for example about an ecomuseum Collection as Structure. Studia Slavica Museological Discourse. In SOARES, with four hundred buffaloes. et Balcanica Petropolitana, 2018, no. 2, Bruno B. and Anaildo B. BARAÇAL These articles have a negligible (eds.). Stránský: A bridge Brno – Brazil. theoretical level, moreover, they Paris: ICOFOM, 2017, pp. 130–143. even can be destructive due to 72 GLUZIŃSKI Wojciech. Problemy ISBN 978-92-9012-423-8. współczesnego muzealnictwa. Roczniki Etnografii their misunderstanding of all Śląskiej, 1963, no. 2, pp. 178–230. Most authors LESHCHENKO, Anna. Avram M. Razgon. philosophical correlations. In fact, cite this source insufficiently (e. g. WAIDACHER, In SOARES, Bruno B. (ed.). A history of Friedrich. Handbuch der Allgemeinen Museologie. museology: Key authors of museological only the remaining 5 % of all texts Wien: Böhlau, 1993, p. 728) and state inaccurately are indeed devoted to museology. that the work was published in Warsaw instead theory. Paris: ICOFOM, 2019, pp. 88–92. There is no choice but to repeat of Wrocław. It is evident that somebody confused ISBN 978-92-9012-455-9. Wrocław (probably F. Waidacher) with Warsaw the 1963 sigh of complaint by and the others no longer cited (read) the original MAIRESSE, François. Museology at W. Gluziński: “No other specialised article but only the transcription of a wrong a crossroads. Museologica Brunensia, reference in order to improve the image of their scientific discipline than museum own article. 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 4–9. ISSN 1805-4722.
25 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
MAIRESSE, François. What is Zbyněk a contemporary science. In SOARES, WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Z. Stránský’s “influence” on museology? Bruno B. and Anaildo B. BARAÇAL allgemeinen Museologie. Wien: Böhlau, Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, (eds.). Stránský: A bridge Brno – Brazil. 1993. 792 p. ISBN 3-205-98180-4. no. 2, pp. 27–36. ISSN 1805-4722. Paris: ICOFOM, 2017, pp. 165–171. WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Irreplaceable One. MAROEVIĆ, Ivo. Introduction to Museology – ISBN 978-92-9012-423-8. On The Demise of Zbyněk Z. Stránský. the European Approach. München: Verlag SOARES, Bruno B. Museology, building Museologica Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, Müller-Straten, 1998. bridges. In SOARES, Bruno B. (ed.). no. 2, p. 75. ISSN 1805-4722. ISBN 978-3-932704-52-9. A history of Museology: Key authors of WALZ, Markus. Too Early, Too Late: MENSCH, Peter van. Museality at museological theory. Paris: ICOFOM, 2019, The Relevance of Zbyněk Stránský breakfast. The concept of museality in pp. 17–40. ISBN 978-92-9012-455-9. for German Museology. Museologica contemporary museological discourse. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Archeologie Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 44–50. Museologica Brunensia, 2015, vol. 4, a muzeologie. Brno: Masarykova ISSN 1805-4722. https://doi.org/10.5817/ no. 2, 14–19. ISSN 1805-4722. univerzita, 2005. 315 s. MuB2016-2-5 MENSCH, Peter van. Metamuseological ISBN 80-210-3861-6. challenges in the work of Zbyněk STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Ist Museologie eine Stránský. Museologica Brunensia, 2016, kommunistische Wissenschaft? Museum JAN DOLÁK vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 18–26. ISSN 1805-4722. Aktuell, April 2001, pp. 58–61. https://doi.org/10.5817/MuB2016-2-2 ISSN 0028-3282. Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovak Republic MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. Wie in STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Předmět [email protected] der DDR Museologie gemacht wurde: muzeologie. In STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Die kommunistische Abrechnung mit (ed.). Sborník materiálů prvého Z. Z. Stránský. Museum Aktuell, Juli– muzeologického sympozia Brno – 1965. Jan Dolák teaches museology August 2005, pp. 40–41. Brno: Moravské muzeum v Brně, 1966, at the Comenius University ISSN 1433-3848. pp. 30–33. in Bratislava (Slovakia). His PATOČKA, Jan. Přirozený svět STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Úvod do studia main focus lies on theoretical jako filozofický problém. Praha: muzeologie. Brno: UJEP, 1984. 167 p. museology, collection-building Československý spisovatel, 1992. 281 p. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Museology. and exhibition-making activity of ISBN 80-202-0365-6. Introduction to Studies. Brno: Masaryk museums, partly also on museum management and marketing. PODBORSKÝ, Vladimír. Moje vzpomínky University in Brno, 1995. 116 p. Formerly, he was Chairman of na docenta PhDr. Zbyňka Z. Stránského ISBN 80-210-0704-4. the Association of Museums and (26. 10. 1926–21. 1. 2016). Museologica STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Muzeologie. Galleries, today he is Chairman Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 85–87. Úvod do studia. Brno: Masarykova of the Museological Commission ISSN 1805-4722. univerzita v Brně, 1995. 114 p. of AMG. He is long-acting leading POPADIĆ, Milan. The origin and legacy ISBN 80-210-0703-6. member of the international of the concept of museality. Voprosy STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Zbyslav. Schärer, ICOFOM commission and author muzeologii, 2017, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 3–12. Martin R. Die Ausstellung: Theorie und of more than hundred works ISSN 2219-6269. Exempel. Museologica Brunensia, 2012, published in seven languages. SCHEINER, Tereza C. Beyond the museum: vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 39–40. ISSN 1805-4722. Jan Dolák přednáší muzeologii na Museologies and Meta(?)theories. Notes Susan Blackmore. In Wikipedia, the Univerzitě Komenského v Brati- on the contribution of Z. Z. Stránský for Free Encyclopedia [online]. [accessed slavě (Slovensko). Zaměřuje se Latin-American thinking. In SOARES, 2019-12-04]. Available from www: především na teoretickou muzeo‑ Bruno B. and Anaildo B. BARAÇAL
This work can be used in accordance with the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 International license terms and conditions (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode). This does not apply to works or elements (such as images or photographs) that are used in the work under a contractual license or exception or limitation to relevant rights.
26