Document généré le 29 sept. 2021 18:10
Muséologies Les cahiers d'études supérieures
The Many Faces of Knowledge Production in Art Museums: An Exploration of Exhibition Strategies Emilie Sitzia
Les nouveaux paradigmes Volume 8, numéro 2, 2016
URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1050765ar DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/1050765ar
Aller au sommaire du numéro
Éditeur(s) Association Québécoise de Promotion des Recherches Étudiantes en Muséologie (AQPREM)
ISSN 1718-5181 (imprimé) 1929-7815 (numérique)
Découvrir la revue
Citer cet article Sitzia, E. (2016). The Many Faces of Knowledge Production in Art Museums: An Exploration of Exhibition Strategies. Muséologies, 8(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.7202/1050765ar
Tous droits réservés © Association Québécoise de Promotion des Recherches Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des Étudiantes en Muséologie (AQPREM), 2018 services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/
Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit. Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. https://www.erudit.org/fr/ Article cinq The Many Faces of Knowledge Production in Art Museums: An Exploration of Exhibition Strategies Emilie Sitzia
141 Muséologies vol. 8 | no 2 Article cinq (141 – 157)
Dr. Emilie Sitzia is an associate professor in the depart- ment of literature and art at Maastricht University and the director of the Master Arts and Heritage programme. She teaches cultural education, curatorship and interdis- ciplinary research methods, as well as 19th and 20th-century art and literature. She publishes regularly on art, literature and museum studies topics.
142 Emilie Sitzia The Many Faces of Knowledge Production in Art Museums: An Exploration of Exhibition Strategies
1. Introduction ‘interpretation department’, and as museums see themselves as “centers for public learn- Art museums have fuid and changing identi- ing”7, one must ask, what precisely is meant by ties, ranging from elite galleries that display knowledge production in art museums? the dominant culture, to spaces that feature exhibitions investigating personal psycho- 1.1 Knowledge production in art logical or emotional issues. Many emphasize museum: defnitions displays of power, while other museums pos- Niels Gottschalk-Mazouz defnes knowledge ition themselves as tools for the democratisa- as a cluster concept with seven characteristics: tion of knowledge1. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill emphasises that museums’ operational – knowledge has a practical aspect; modes and identities shift “according to the context, the plays of power, and the social, – knowledge is person-bound or not economic, and political imperatives that sur- (personalised or represented knowledge round them”2. However, in recent decades, co-exist and are dependent); knowledge production has become a central aim for museums3. This is in part due to the – knowledge has a normative structure; developments of new forms of visitor-centred mediation such as new museology, construc- – knowledge is internally networked (lin- tivist museum approaches, or participatory ked to existing internal knowledge); practices4. Museums now defne their mission in terms of knowledge production5 and as – knowledge is externally networked; Hooper-Greenhill emphasises: “knowledge is now well understood as the commodity that – knowledge is dynamic; museums ofer”6. As education departments 143 in art museums throughout the world are – and knowledge has institutional gradually renamed ‘services to the public’ or contexts8.
1 Linda Nochlin in 1972 highlighted that museums contain in May 2016); HEIN, George. “The Constructivist museum”. an inherent contradiction as they serve as both a temple In. HOOPER-GREENHILL, Eilean. The educational role of of the arts for the elite and an instrument for democratic the Museum. London: Routledge, 1999; FALK, John and Lynn education. This is still an issue today, especially for art DIERKING. Learning from Museums: Visitor experiences and museums. NOCHLIN, Linda. “Museums and radicals”. In. the making of meaning. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2000. O’DOHERTY, Brian (ed.). Museums in Crisis. New York: For considerations on participatory practices see: SIMON, G. Braziller, 1972, p. 8. Nina. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2 HOOPER-GREENHILL, Eilean. Museums and the 2010. McSWEENEY, Kayte and Jen KAVANAGH (ed.). Shaping of Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1992, p. 1. Museum participation: New directions for audience participa- 3 HEIN, George. Learning in the Museum. London: tion. Edinburgh: Museums Etc, 2016; SHIRKY, Clay. Here Routledge, 1998, p. 3. Comes Everybody: The power of organizing without organiza- 4 For considerations on new museology see, for example: tions. New York: Penguin Press, 2008. VERGO, Peter. The New Museology. London: Reaktion 5 HEIN, George. “Museum Education”. In. Books, 1989; DAVALLON, Jean. L’exposition à l’œuvre : MACDONALD, Sharon. A Companion to Museum Studies. stratégies de communication et médiation symbolique. Paris: Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006, p. 340. L’Harmattan, 1999; SANDELL, Richard. “Museum as Agent 6 HOOPER-GREENHILL, op. cit., p. 2. of Social Inclusion”. Museum Management and Curatorship. 7 FALK, John and Lynn DIERKING. The Museum vol. 17, no 4, 1998, p. 401-418; MAIRESSE, François and Experience Revisited. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, André DESVALLÉES. Vers une redéfinition du musée. Paris: 2013, p. 14. L’Harmattan, 2007; MAIRESSE, François. Le Musée, temple 8 GOTTSCHALK-MAZOUZ, Niels. “Internet and the spectaculaire : une histoire du projet muséal. Lyon: Presses de fow of knowledge: Which ethical and political challenges will l’Université de Lyon, 2002; MARSTINE, Janet. New Museum we face?”. In. Wittgenstein and the Philosophy of Information. Theory and Practice: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2008. p. 218–222. 2006. For considerations on constructivist museums see, for example: DEWEY, John. Democracy and education. Champaign: Project Guttenberg.
More generally, knowledge production has process whereby knowledge is created through gradually expanded beyond factual, normative the transformation of experience”13. The information. The defning element of our cur- encounter with the object and the knowledge rent knowledge societies is “not the centrality emanating from the object is then only a small of knowledge and information, but the appli- part of the knowledge transfer and production cation of such knowledge and information that happens in the museum14. This is particu- to knowledge generation and information larly true if we consider ‘learning’ in a broad processing/communication devices, in a cumu- manner and ‘knowledge’ as more than factual lative feedback loop between innovation and information. John Falk and Lynn Dierking the uses of innovation”9. Knowledge is there- distinguish between three types of learning fore now considered not only as cognitive or potentially taking place in the museum: learn- emotional information as many theoreticians ing cognitive information, learning afective of education state10, but also as the skills with information, and learning psychomotor infor- which to produce more knowledge on the basis mation15. But as we have seen, knowledge cre- of existing knowledge11. ation goes beyond information. It extends to the application of knowledge and its impact on As mentioned the issue this article looks to the individual and on others. It also extends to investigate is: what does knowledge production the creation of normative structures, as well as mean within the context of an art museum and the creation of internal and external networks. can certain exhibition strategies promote a cer- Knowledge creation is defned by its self-gen- tain type of knowledge production? Artworks erating dynamism. The hypothesis this article can be seen as “material traces of bodies puts forward is that knowledge production in of knowledge”12. The art object held in the the art museum has many faces and that some museum is then central for the development specifc exhibition strategies promote a specifc 144 of knowledge: it concentrates information on type of knowledge production. Knowledge the artist and the artwork itself, but also the production is a process that implies that on top society that surrounded its production. But we of the acquisition of information, there will can also consider the overall experience of the also be the development of diverse individual museum as an opportunity for knowledge pro- cognitive skills (such as analytical skills, critical duction. Indeed, Kolb defnes learning as “the skills, internal, external networking skills,
9 CASTELLS, Manuel. The Rise of Network Society. Psychologist. vol. 37, 1982, p. 1019–1024; LAZARUS, Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1996, p. 32. Richard. “On the Primacy of Cognition”. American 10 It is worth noting here that a dichotomy exists between Psychologist. vol. 39, 1984, p. 124–129. theory and normative practices of education. Theories of 12 BUTTERS, Suzanne. “From Skills to Wisdom: Making, education tend to acknowledge cognitive and emotional Knowing, and the Arts”. In. SMITH, Pamela, Amy MEYERS learning as equally valuable and as desirable outcomes of and Harold COOK. The Material Culture of Empirical cultural education. However, in practice, the focus on clearly Knowledge. Ann Harbour: The University of Michigan Press, measurable factual information is broadly seen as the purpose 2014, p. 72. of learning in museums. This is, in part, due to the modeling 13 KOLB, David. Experiential learning: Experience as of the evaluation of museum knowledge production on the the source of learning and development. Englewood Clifs: evaluation of education in formal environment that focus on Prentice-Hall, 1984, p. 38. cognitive output. 14 For more on museum and social learning see: 11 For more on the interaction between emotion and WENGER, Etienne. Communities of Practice: Learning, cognitive learning and the associated debate see: ZAJONC, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Robert. “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Press, 1998; Id., “A Social Theory of Learning”. In. ILLERIS, Interferences”. American Psychologist. vol. 35, 1980, p. op. cit.; WENGER-TRAYNER, Etienne, Omid OMIDVAR, 151–175; ZAJONC, Robert. “On the Primacy of Afect”. and Roman KISLOV. “The Evolution of the Communities of American Psychologist. vol. 39, 1984, p. 117–123; ILLERIS, Practice Approach: Toward Knowledgeability in a Landscape Knud (ed.). Contemporary Theories of Learning. New York: of Practice—An Interview With Etienne Wenger-Trayner”. Routledge, 2009; LAZARUS, Richard. “A Cognitivist’s Reply Journal of Management Inquiry. vol. 23, 2014. to Zajonc on Emotion and Cognition”. American Psychologist. 15 FALK, John and Lynn DIERKING. The Museum vol. 36, 1981, p. 222–223; LAZARUS, Richard. “Thoughts Experience. Washington: Whalesback Books, 1992. on the Relations Between Emotion and Cognition”. American Emilie Sitzia The Many Faces of Knowledge Production in Art Museums: An Exploration of Exhibition Strategies etc.), diverse individual emotional skills (such the idea that meanings are impossibly as empathy, expanded imagination, creativity, unstable is embraceable because inevi- etc.), a wide variety of individual psychomotor table. With works of art, meanings are skills (how to look at a painting, move in a only produced in context and that is a limited space, manipulate an artwork, etc.), collective, negotiated, debated and shif- as well as a range of social skills (normative ting consensual process of determination. museum behaviour or communication skills Representation is always in crisis, which is for example). Therefore, knowledge produc- always a form of freedom16. tion in the art museum goes well beyond cog- nitive engagement and information transfer, So it is important, when talking about and extends into emotional and psychomotor knowledge production in the art museum to learning and skills development. explicitely consider not only object-centred knowledge production but also people-centred 1.2 Meaning making and knowledge knowledge and skills (understood as applied production knowledge that potentially generates new There is a signifcant diference between knowledge). knowledge production and meaning making that is often not made explicit. Meaning mak- 1.3 Autonomous artwork and knowledge ing and knowledge production are related. production Meaning making can be a form of knowledge Another challenge for knowledge produc- production by creating new hypotheses on tion in art museums is the perceived tension the interpretation of an artwork or meaning between an autonomous artwork (detached making can be the actualisation of knowledge from life and having an independent set of such as applying expert knowledge to a specifc values) and knowledge production (which is object for example. But knowledge produc- anchored in the cultural, social and physical 145 tion and meaning making are not equivalents. environment it is produced in). However, it Knowledge production is broader than mean- is worth noting that an artwork doesn’t exist ing making because meaning making is mostly without social recognition (that is without object-centred while knowledge production being acknowledged as an artwork by the tends to be people-centred. It is here a matter critics or institutions for example) and the of emphasis rather than opposition. The mean- presence of an audience. And as Mieke Bal ing-making process starts with the object and highlights, as soon as an object is exhibited, is intrinsically linked to the object. However, and if we conceive exhibitions as an act of the knowledge produced in the museum may communication, the object can no longer or may not be relevant to the object exhibited be considered autonomous17. Furthermore, (normative behaviour in a museum might be an knowledge production is often perceived as example of knowledge created that is not object inhibiting aesthetic experience in the museum. related). But the knowledge created in the Bal underscores that the interference cre- museum will be closely related to people: the ated by the museum as an institution and the museum staf, exhibition makers, and/or the interference produced by the social context in audience. The challenge is even greater in the which the artwork is presented are “part and context of an art museum where the object’s parcel of the experience of art”18. Knowledge meaning is particularly variable and prone to production in the art museum is a direct conse- change. As Ferguson argues, in art exhibitions, quence of these interferences.
16 FERGUSON, Bruce, Reesa GREENBERG and Sandy 17 BAL, Mieke, “Exposing the Public”. In. MACDONALD, NAIRNE. Thinking About Exhibitions. London: Routledge, op. cit., p. 529. 1996, p. 186. 18 Ibid., p. 525. Muséologies vol. 8 | no 2 Article cinq (141 – 157)
1.4 Hein as an explorative tool/ of knowledge. On the other end, he places methodology learning theories that state that the learner To explore the kind of knowledge production constructs knowledge22. happening in art museums this article will use George Hein’s theory presented in his seminal Hein concludes with an outline of the difer- book Learning in the Museum19. In this text, ent models, combining these four theoretical Hein ofers a theoretical framework that is par- positions: ticularly useful when thinking about the pos- ition of art museums in regards to knowledge production. Hein’s theory, which is familiar Knowledge exists outside to many museum professionals, covers a range the learner of forms of knowledge of production. This framework also facilitates the grouping of diferent types of knowledge production with Didactic, Discovery Expository specifc exhibition strategies. Incremental Knowledge Learner learning, Learning Theory constructs First Hein shows that there are two extreme added knowledge bit by bit positions taken by museums when it comes Stimulus- Constructivism Response
to theories of knowledge. In museums, know- Theory of ledge can be considered as existing independ- ently of the learner and as being linked to the All knowledge is constructed by ‘real world’ (realism). At the other extreme, the learner personally or socially knowledge can be considered as located and constructed in the mind of the learner 20 Figure 1 146 (idealism) . Key questions for the museums Hein’s Model of Educational Theories23 (answered tacitly or openly) are therefore,
Does the museum take the view that its These four models—didactic/expository, mission is to impart truth, independently discovery, stimulus-response, and construc- of the particular previous experiences, tivism—will form the core theoretical frame- culture, and disposition of its visitors? work of our analysis and drive the structure Does the museum take the position of the article as we ask ourselves what know- that knowledge is relative, infuenced by ledge production looks like in art museums culture and needs to be explained and and what kind of knowledge is created24. Is interpreted, depending on the purpose, knowledge production in art museums about use and situation21? creating new interpretations, experiencing the medium, creating new links, creating an He continues by outlining two opposing emotional, empathic, or aesthetic knowledge, museum positions when it comes to theories recognizing patterns, acquiring art historical of learning. At one end, he places the transmis- facts, or develop analytical and critical skills? sion-absorption model where learners, seen as We will also ask who are the knowledge pro- vessels to be flled, incrementally absorb pieces ducers in each of the museum models: the artists, the curators, the education team, or the public? Finally we will ask how knowledge
19 HEIN, 1998, op. cit. 24 The aim of this article is therefore not to ofer a history 20 Ibid., p. 16–21. of knowledge production in museums. It is also not the aim of 21 Ibid., p. 19. this article to create an inventory of approaches to knowledge 22 Ibid., p. 21–23. production in the feld of arts and culture nor is it to explore 23 Ibid., p. 25. the issues of social impact or power relations on knowledge production in museums. Emilie Sitzia The Many Faces of Knowledge Production in Art Museums: An Exploration of Exhibition Strategies
production is shown in art museums and how complex, and school-like educational struc- specifc exhibition strategies direct the type of tures (with clear learning goals and a didactic knowledge created25. Each model from Hein’s progression)27. framework—didactic/expository, discovery, stimulus-response, and constructivism—will 2.1 Art history as a driving discipline be contextualised for the art museums (that behind the didactic/expository exhibition is museums that focus on the exhibition of strategy fne arts), with a specifc example to clarify In the art museum the didactic/expository our analysis. This article uses explanatory model is mostly found in art historically cases26. The cases were selected for their rep- organised museums. Such institutions use art resentativeness of the practices in museum. history as the main discipline grounding their For all cases the main source was exhibition refection, organisation, display and interpret- documentation completed, when possible, ation of the collection. For example, in Paris with direct observation. Once this explora- (France), the Centre Pompidou’s ‘Présentation tion of the diversity of knowledge production des collections modernes – 1905–1965’ ofers associated with specifc exhibition strategies a chronological approach from modern to is carried out we will assess the possibility to contemporary art. This case was chosen, as go beyond Hein’s standard models and explore it is representative of a common strategy of what knowledge production would look like in exhibition in art museums, especially in larger alternative and hybrid models. institutions that are strongly connected to art history as a discipline and possess a large collection that allows them to display such 2. Didactic/expository model: museums a chronology. The case was analysed based show and tell/visitors watch and learn on documentation and completed by a direct observation of the display. 147 The didactic/expository model adopts the position that knowledge exists independ- The presentation of the permanent collection ently from the learner and that learning is an was redesigned in 2015 to focus on the read- incremental transfer of knowledge from the ability of modern art history28. The museum institution to the learner. Museums adopting adopted a “chronological format featuring this format focus on the objects rather than major historical milestones, introducing the visitor and on a sequential step-by-step visitors to key fgures, works and movements approach. Hein identifes typical charac- making up the history of modern art, together teristics that such museums have: ordered with the ‘go-betweens’ who helped to con- sequential exhibition design (a clear beginning struct the history of modernity”29. This linear and end), didactic components such as labels art historical approach to art exhibitions is or panels describing the learning content, often found in large national collections that a hierarchical organisation from simple to focus on reinforcing national art historical narrative or on placing this narrative in an international context.
25 We will focus here on the exhibition space itself and 26 YIN, Robert. Case study research: design and methods. its content, not on extra material or associated educational Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003. programme. Such programme and educational material are 27 Ibid., p. 27–29. often designed by a diferent team than the curatorial team 28 Centre Pompidou. Interview of Centre Pompidou director (for example educational departments that may have very Bernard Blistène.
2.2 Knowledge production in the relatively limited and stay within specifc didactic/expository model boundaries. For example, the Birdwatching In this model the knowledge producer is trad- Rijksmuseum day (Amsterdam, Netherlands) itionally the museum (curators, art historians, looked to use the skills of the public to iden- and educators). The kind of knowledge pro- tify species of birds in the Rijksmuseum’s duced by visitors is linked to the recognition painting collection30. “Birdwatchers and avian of specifc patterns, and developments of enthusiasts” were invited to explore the digital internal and external networks. If we ask what collection, identify birds, and enter data in form of knowledge is produced by visitors in Wikimedia commons. This project is linked such environments we can see that the focus with ‘Accurator’31, a platform that allows the is then on cognitive normative information public to tag digitised images from the art and on recognition skills (internal and external collection of the Rijksmuseum to improve the networking). Factual information about the descriptions and searchability of the online artwork, the artist, the art movement, its social collection. ‘Accurator’, while using public and artistic context is at the core of the know- knowledge production potential also has some ledge production apparatus created by the level of expertise built in the system to insure museum. Labels or other tools (audio-guides, accuracy of descriptions. Moreover, it contains podcasts, etc.) all aim to transfer information only three domains of expertise to which the to the visitor (mostly cognitive and sometime public can contribute: birds, fashion and the emotional information). In this model, the Bible. So while it acknowledges the potential knowledge produced by the visitors mostly for public knowledge production, it insures stays invisible and the display of knowledge control of interpretation by experts and limits production is meant as a tool for disseminating the feld of knowledge the public can contrib- the art historical discourse rather than stimu- ute to. The knowledge produced by the visitors 148 lating on-going dynamic visitor knowledge is about pattern recognition and creation of production. internal/external networks and production of factual information checked by experts. It stays 2.3 Issues related to knowledge very much in the didactic/expository mode of production in the didactic/expository approach as the authority of the expert is not model: visibility of visitor’s knowledge challenged and the authorship of knowledge production and transparency is institutionalised. The usability and value In the didactic/expository model, public given to that knowledge by the general public knowledge is created to reinforce an existing is also an issue as the main benefciary of such normative discourse. It is mostly an internal an activity is the museum as an institution as process and therefore stays predominantly well as specialist researchers32. invisible. Some museums try to make this knowledge creation process observable by Beyond the invisibility of the public’s know- adopting more open exhibitory practices such ledge production, the main issue for know- as participatory practices. While museums ledge production in the didactic/expository that employ participatory practices are trying exhibition model is the lack of transparency. to involve the public in knowledge production As argued by Jane Deeth, the museum needs and attempt to make this knowledge visible to to expose its methods to be credible33. The the rest of the public, these practices remain institution needs to help the public understand
30 Rijksmuseum. Birdwatching Rijksmuseum.
the value of the expert in this knowledge-trans- Interestingly, this model detaches itself from fer process by, as Bal notes, “foreground[ing] a normative art historical discourse, and rather than obscure[ing] the mechanisms focuses instead on the disciplines of psych- and decisions that underlie the presentation ology and fne arts education. An example of objects by means of an artifcial coherence of such an endeavour is the experiment by that is both provisional and indispensible”34. Austin Clarkson and Douglas Worts in the Exposing such mechanism would not necessar- Art Gallery of Ontario in 199337. This case ily threaten the didactic/expository model (as it was chosen as a representative case for art would not inherently threaten the authority of museums trying to encourage constructed the institution). However, in the traditional and meaning and extended engagement with the participatory examples of the didactic/exposi- artwork within a stimulus-response model. tory model presented here, this foregrounding The case was analysed through documenta- of method is absent as the institutions focus on tion. In order to increase engagement with the content rather than process. artwork (meaning both intensifying emotional engagement and increasing the time spent by the visitor with the artwork) and to expand 3. Stimulus-response model: museums show the visitor’s creative responses to the artworks and prompt/visitors feel, do, and learn (interpretation and meaning making), they proposed an ‘exercise for exploring’ the paint- The stimulus-response model also emphasizes ing. This exercise consisted of a 12-minutes that knowledge is incrementally added bit by audio programme in a booth dedicated to a bit to the learner but “makes no claims for the single painting. The audio programme pro- objective truth of what is learned”35. Museums moted observation skills through prompts with this approach will be characterised, such as asking the viewer to scan the image according to Hein, by didactic components slowly and then close their eyes and recompose 149 outlining what is to be learned, by a sequential it in their head. It also activated the imagin- approach and by reinforcing components (that ation of the viewer and encouraged them to repeat and reward appropriate responses)36. engage with the work through questions about As the focus here is not anymore on an art temperature, sound and texture in the paint- historical discourse (that would equate for art ing. It also stimulated further examination to ‘the objective truth’) but rather on diverse of the image by inviting the visitor to choose personal interpretations of the object, this a spot in the painting and imagine exploring model can be fruitful for art museums. The the landscape from that new vintage point. fuid interpretation of artworks and varied Finally, the exercise closed with a ‘verifca- emotional and creative responses of the viewer tion’ phase documenting and promoting become central in such a model. refection on the experience with the help of specifcally designed ‘Share your reactions’ 3.1 Engagement and creativity as key response cards. In these cards visitors were concepts behind the stimulus-response invited to record their experience in words exhibition strategy and/or images38. The visitor throughout this The aim of the institution in such format is experiment was stimulated to produce diverse to stimulate a variety of interpretations and levels of interpretation of the work, and to increase visitor’s engagement and creativity. create her/his own response (emotional and
34 BAL, op.cit., p. 526. experiment as a stimulus-reponse approach even though they 35 HEIN, 1998, op. cit., p. 29. are clearly looking to engage visitors and stimulate creative 36 Ibid., p. 29. responses in the visitors. The experiment was successful as 37 CLARKSON, Austin and Douglas WORTS. “The the “positive responses outnumbered the negative by more Animated Muse: An Interpretive Program for Creative than 10 to one” p. 265. Viewing”. Curator: The Museum Journal. vol. 8, no 3, 2005, 38 Ibid., p. 263–264. p. 257–280. The authors themselves do not identify the Muséologies vol. 8 | no 2 Article cinq (141 – 157)
intellectual) to the artwork. The forms of The other main issue is the very small number knowledge produced here are quite diferent of visitors actually using the response cards from the didactic/expository model. The focus (2%). This left a large part of the knowledge is on creating internal and external networks produced invisible to the institution and the and the activity is deeply person-bound. rest of the public. Emotional knowledge is created at an individ- ual level (imagination, creativity, and personal identity development) and at a social level 4. Discovery Model: museums show (empathy and communication of emotion in and ask/visitors think and learn particular). Here the knowledge producers are partly the museum team that designed the With the discovery model, the focus shifts activity—they produced the frame for the kind to the visitor/learner. The visitor constructs of knowledge created—and partly the public knowledge and learns how to learn as she/he that shares the knowledge produced through goes along. Hein defnes this model as “any the response cards. form of education that attributes active partici- pation on the learner”40, but still with specifc 3.2 Issues related to knowledge educational outcomes41. Active learning is production in the stimulus-response often characterised by ‘hands-on’ learning, by model: threat to curatorial authority a form that allows exploration (not necessarily and lack of visibility of the knowledge linear), as well as by a range of active learning produced activities, by didactic components in the form The issues in this model are twofold. Firstly, of questions, by means to compare the learn- this type of exercise can be (and has been) per- er’s interpretation with others (or ‘correct ceived as a “threat to curatorial authority”39. ones’), and by expert testimonies to encourage 150 When the interpretation is left to the visitor, the predetermined conclusion42. This form it is perceived as a loss of knowledge from the has been actively adopted in science museums viewpoint of the experts in the institution. for example, but is seldom encountered in art However, the kind of questions asked in the museums, apart from some activities designed programme focused on perception as well for children. For example, Vincent’s travelling as creative and emotional reception rather than case in the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam factual information. Rather than looking for ofers a range of hands-on activities to help an objective truth about the artwork, such an children (and parents) gain some pre-deter- exhibition strategy is exploring the interpret- mined knowledge on the artist and his work43. ative potential of the work. Furthermore, this programme was accompanied by two other 4.1 Refection and problems as generator audio tracks including a more traditional cur- of knowledge atorial introduction and a presentation of the More and more often, in art museums, visitors artist by friends and relatives. This insured that are not led towards pre-determined informa- the process stayed in line with the institutional tion or solutions, but rather towards a predeter- discourse. The process of image analysis also mined problem. The disciplinary grounding followed theories of both education and psych- for such designs is often related to social ology applied to the fne arts. The analytical sciences. For example, the 2012 exhibition at skills gained were then anchored in a clear Tate Liverpool ‘Art Turning Left: How Values disciplinary tradition. Changed Making 1789–2013’ used art as a
39 Ibid., p. 262. 43 Van Gogh Museum. Vincent’s travelling case.
mode of exploration of existing issues, specifc- to gather information and interpretations of ally: “to investigate the way that political beliefs the work to ‘use’ the work in building her/his had changed how artists produced their work or answer to the question. Internal and external their attitude towards the ownership, manage- networks are therefore developed; ment, and re-design of the means of art pro- duction”44. Therefore the exhibition was set up – the individual visitor gains emotional not for the visitor to arrive at pre-determined knowledge and skills conclusions but to explore a pre-determined problem45. The case was chosen as being repre- Through afective engagement with the works sentative of using art to stimulate refection on and understanding of the socio-political broader political or social issues. This case was environments the works were produced in, the analysed through documentation. visitor develops empathy and a sense of owner- ship of the works. Identity building blocks are Rooms were not organised chronologically created when the visitor defnes more precisely or by themes but around questions. Artworks her/his own position and beliefs in regards to were ofered to visitors to stimulate their think- that of others; ing processes and build hypothesis around the questions posed, without explicitly formulating – the individual visitor gains social any answers in the accompanying apparatus knowledge and skills (labels, catalogue, etc.). For example, the wall texts were there only to underline unresolved The visitor learns about collective interpret- issues. At the centre of the exhibition, the ation, about mechanisms of communication ‘Ofce for Useful Art’ provided a bookable around the works, about processes of negotia- public space (physically open to the exhib- tion in meaning-making. ition space, therefore accessible to all visitors) 151 where works could be relocated to “produce In this case the knowledge producer in the new thinking and discourse around them”46. museum is the curator as encoder47, as the cur- The forms of knowledge produced in such an ator asks the questions and to some measure environment are multiple. Knowledge is here directs the types of answers through the selec- simultaneously person-bound (as the visitor tion of works. But the curator is also co-pro- creates their own knowledge) and not (as the ducing knowledge with the audience. The art public space debates allowed), it is normative museum then has the potential to be a “learn- (the problem to be explored is set) but open (the ing machine”48 where everyone, including the resolution to this problem is open). It is inter- museum staf, learns. nally and externally networked and dynamic: room is left for the ‘answers’ of the visitors to 4.2 Issues related to knowledge produc- change and evolve accordingly. The knowledge tion in the discovery model: discursivity, production works at multiple levels: ownership and display The main issues in such cases are that of dis- – the individual visitor gains cognitive cursivity and who produces the resolution of knowledge and skills the problem49, or if there is a resolution at all. Furthermore, the inherently multi-voiced dis- The visitor’s analytical and critical skills are course present in this model makes it hard to developed as they are looking to the artworks collect and present all the knowledge created to answer the questions posed. She/he needs
44 MANACORDA, Francesco. “For Whom Do We Write 46 Ibid., p. 7. Exhibitions? Towards a Museum as Commons”. Stedelijk 47 Ibid., p. 3. Studies. vol. 4, 2016, p. 6. 48 Ibid., p. 6. 45 Ibid., p. 7. 49 DEETH, op. cit., p. 11. Muséologies vol. 8 | no 2 Article cinq (141 – 157)
during the exhibition and share it on a broader In an area of the museum that is part stock- level especially beyond the exhibition space/ room/archive and part display space, visitors timeframe. get acquainted with original artworks in a range of media and from diverse periods. Visitors can choose works (again original 5. Constructivist model: museums offer works), pick them up from the racks, read and support/visitors do and learn about them, and curate a temporary display of the works. A member of staf is present to In the constructivist model the learner is active provide the visitors with more information in producing knowledge and the learner her/ and help them along the way. The visitors can himself is the measure of that knowledge: also submit an exhibition proposal that, if it needs to ‘make sense’ in the reality of the selected, is then realised with the museum staf learner rather than adhere to standard truth50. and stays on display for a longer time in the This form of exhibition will have, according archive room. The forms of knowledge here to Hein, multiple entry points and no specifc are cognitive (analytical, critical, networking, path, provide a range of active learning and factual), emotional (visitors develop a opportunities, present multiple viewpoints, sense of ownership of the works, their imagin- enable the visitor to connect museum objects ation, their creativity, empathy and also layers with their own experiences, and allow for of identity), as well as psychomotor (handling experimentation, conjecture, and conclusion of artworks, display techniques, etc.). drawing51. Because it validates diferent ways The work often takes place in a small group to interpret an object, this mode is particularly cultivating social learning, enhancing for well suited to art museums. example communication skills.
152 5.1 Constructivist model and the building In this constructivist approach, the visitors are of knowledge in the visitor for the most part the knowledge producers. The disciplinary grounding for such practices The museum staf only play a very small part is varied and ranges from constructivist educa- in the knowledge production by selecting tional theories to curatorial studies and social the artworks that are put in this area and by sciences. There are, however, very few exam- ofering advice during the process. As Hooper- ples of this approach in art museums. One Greenhill describes, with the constructivist interesting example is the Van Abbemuseum’s model of museums, “the act of knowing is ‘DIY Archive: Make your own exhibition’ shaped through a mix of experience, activity, (Eindhoven, The Netherlands)52. This case and pleasure, in an environment where both was chosen as representative of the potential the ‘learning’ subject and the ‘teaching’ subject practices not based on art history as a disci- have equal power”53. Because the work of the pline but rather on curatorial studies. The Van visitors is in an open space means that other Abbemuseum is well known for its stance on visitors can witness and share the knowledge the importance of a museum’s social engage- production in a fuid manner. The fact that ment. The case was studied through documen- some exhibitions are showcased for a longer tation and direct observation. period validates this process of knowledge creation by the visitors with the stamp of the institution.
50 HEIN, 1998, op. cit., p. 34. 53 HOOPER-GREENHILL, 1992, op. cit., p. 214. 51 Ibid., p. 35. 52 Van Abbemuseum. DIY Archive, Make your own exhibition.
5.2 Issues related to knowledge produc- knowledge production as well as serve some tion in the constructivist model cognitive, emotional and psychomotor know- While this model produces a wide range of ledge production. No model is complete and knowledge in the visitor, the main issues are the choice between diferent exhibition strat- related to: egies depends very much on the disciplinary grounding of the museums, their aspiration in – artwork conservation as the original terms of knowledge production for the visitors artworks are manipulated by the visitors; as well as their willingness to let go of some of their authority. – issues of authority and authorship: who is responsible for the content of the However, it is clear that, as the museum mis- exhibitions?; sion evolves and centres more and more on the visitor’s knowledge production, the didactic/ – issues of expertise: the expertise of the expository model based on art history as museum staf is changing from content a discipline runs the risk of fast becoming to process, from factual knowledge to the obsolete. More constructivist practices in the ability to apply this knowledge in a given museum space certainly have a role to play in context and help the generating of new this renewal of the art museum. As Hooper- knowledge. Greenhill remarks, “knowing and knowledge have become three-dimensional, all-involving, and all-encompassing. The main themes of 6. Conclusion: going further, hybrid models knowledge are people, their histories, their and ‘ignorant museums’ lives, and their relationships”54. In that regard, art museums should be prompted to open This article has attempted to show the divers- up and merge diferent approaches, to dare 153 ity of forms of knowledge production in to experiment with diferent models and to art museums and to discuss, within Hein’s embrace the diversity implied in knowledge framework, who is producing what kind production related to art collections. But how of knowledge and how it is communicated. to go further? How to optimise and combine We have looked at a few limited examples diferent types of knowledge production? How to illustrate the diferent models: didactic/ to adapt to diferent types of learners? expository, stimulus-response, discovery and constructivism. The richness of potential 6.1 Hybrid models knowledge production in the art museum As we mentioned, no single model covers the and how each model seems to suit a specifc whole range of knowledge production. It there- type of knowledge production (with some fore seems logical to consider that a varied overlaps of course) is striking. The didactic/ approach will lead to a richer knowledge pro- expository model promotes essentially a duction process. Hybrid models that encom- range of cognitive learning; the stimulus-re- pass several approaches within one space can sponse model promotes mostly interpretation help reach this goal. The Van Abbemuseum skills and emotional knowledge (personal that we mentioned in the constructivist model and social); the discovery model facilitates tries to adopt a variety of approaches in the the development of critical skills as well as museum as a whole. ‘The collection now’ a range of cognitive, emotional and social exhibition aims to “tell stories of aesthetics, knowledge; the constructivist model places ethics and politics over the last 100 year”55. it emphasis on the self-generative aspect of While its focus is not solely art historical, the
54 HOOPER-GREENHILL, 1992, op. cit., p. 198. 55 Van Abbemuseum. The Collection Now,
intent is didactic/expository. Its location, inter- but still present in both occurrences. The main twined with other thematic or experiential diference is in the institutional commitment to exhibitions as well as with the constructivist an on-going learning process and in the clarity ‘DIY Archive’ ofers a range of alternative for of the learning goals. To Rancière, the core of knowledge production in the museum. learning is in the will to learn and motivation of the learner (which the schoolmaster/museum However, it may be more efcient to com- can support). One of the main dangers of bine approaches within a single exhibition to such a model in art museums is the negation reinforce the self-generating potential of the of the museum as a centre of expertise in the knowledge production process. It is important traditional sense. Just as for the constructivist to note that it is the diversity of approaches model, the ignorant art museum staf, need to that is crucial to knowledge production in the assert a new type of expertise to do with the art museum as it attempts to accommodate ability to apply knowledge in a given context the needs of diverse publics, types of learners, and help generate new knowledge. communities and forms of art. To conclude we should note that further stud- 6.2 The ‘ignorant art museum’56 ies that take into account visitors’ expectations The ‘ignorant museum’ is based on Jacques of art museum visits (openness of interpreta- Rancière’s view on education and the idea tion, type of authorial voice of the institution, of the ‘ignorant schoolmaster’57. Yuha Jung etc.) should also be added to complete the proposed this idea in her text “The ignorant picture of knowledge production in the art museum: transforming the elitist museum into museum. It is also worth noting that while an inclusive learning place.”58 She focused the diferent types of museum mediation on merging Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of the were at the heart of this article, the type of art 154 oppressed and Rancière’s emancipatory edu- presented by the museum also has an impact cation principles. The “ignorant museum” on the kind of knowledge created. Immersive is a fruitful principle and we do not see that installations such as those of Yayoi Kusama’s concept as solely a means to reduce elitism retrospective at the Louisiana Museum in museum (even though this is highly desir- (Humlebæk, Denmark)59 have a very diferent able) but also as a way to merge diferent impact on the visitor’s knowledge production approaches to museum knowledge creation. than discursive art such as that presented in the exhibition ‘Guerrilla Girls 1985–Today’60. In his text Rancière attacks the ‘explanation’ as Diferent mediation approaches may suit bet- one of the downfall of the education system. ter diferent types of artworks. He explains that the explanation reduces and oversimplifes knowledge and limits the know- We have shown in this article that knowledge ledge creation process. Rancière argues that production in art museums is multifarious learning through experience, chance, failure and that specifc exhibition strategies promote and self-correction emancipates learners by for- certain types of knowledge production. We cing them to use and develop their own know- have concluded that hybrid approaches could ledge. One can ask how diferent it is from the be fruitful in art museums as well as closer col- constructivist approach. Indeed, the interven- laboration between disciplines and educators, tion of the museum as an institution is minimal curators, conservators, and the public. Finally
56 This concept deserves further study and will be the 59 Louisiana Museum of Modern Art. Yayoi Kusama. central topic of an upcoming article (autumn 2017).
155 Muséologies vol. 8 | no 2 Article cinq (141 – 157)
Les nombreux visages de la production de connaissances dans les musées d’art : une exploration des stratégies d'exposition
Les dernières décennies ont vu la production de savoirs devenir un des objectifs centraux des musées. Ceci est partiellement dû au développe- ment de nouvelles formes de médiation centrées sur les visiteurs, telles que la muséologie, les approches muséales constructivistes et les pra- tiques participatives. Cette réalité pose cependant des défs particuliers aux musées d’art. Parce que de façon globale, les services d’éducation des musées d’art sont graduellement renommés « services aux publics », ou « services éducatifs », et parce que les musées se considèrent eux- mêmes des « lieux d'éducation informelle », il importe de se questionner sur la nature de la production artistique, sur ce qui la constitue et ce qu’elle signife.
Afn d’explorer les nombreuses facettes de l'apprentissage dans les musées d'art, cet article met en oeuvre la théorie de George Hein tirée de son ouvrage séminal Learning in the Museum. Dans ce texte, Hein propose un cadre particulièrement utile pour réféchir à la position des musées d'art en matière de production de connaissances et de stratégie d'exposition. Les quatre modèles qu'il élabore – didactique/expositif, découverte, stimulus-réponse et constructivisme – forment le cadre théorique, la structure de base de notre analyse qui vise à comprendre en quoi consiste la production de connaissances dans les musées d’art, 156 et qu’elle est la nature de cette production. Est-ce que la production de connaissances dans les musées d’art concerne essentiellement la créa- tion de nouvelles expositions, l’expérimentation de nouveaux mediums, la production de nouveaux liens, la production de connaissances d’ordre esthétique, émotionnel et empathique, la reconnaissance des modèles, l’acquisition de notions d’histoire de l’art, ou l’acquisition de compé- tences analytiques et critiques ? Nous nous interrogerons aussi sur l’identité des producteurs de savoir parmi chacun des modèles muséaux : les artistes, les conservateurs, l’équipe afecté aux services éducatifs ou le public ? Nous chercherons enfn à comprendre comment la produc- tion de savoirs est difusée dans les musées d’art. Tiré du cadre théorique d’Hein, chaque modèle soit, la didactique/expositoire, la découverte, le stimulus-réponse et le constructivisme est mis en contexte à même un cas d’étude afn que l’analyse soit la plus claire possible. À la suite de cette exploration sur la diversité de la production de savoirs associée à des stratégies d'exposition spécifques, nous évaluons les possibilités de dépassement des modèles standards de Hein, et explorons ce que la production de connaissances issue de modèles alternatifs et hybrides pourrait représenter.
Cet article démontre que la diversité des approches est cruciale pour la production de connaissances dans le musée d'art, car il s’agit de moyens qui permettent de répondre aux besoins de divers publics, de divers types d'apprenants, de communautés et de formes d'art. Cette étude souligne l'importance de la conception des expositions et maintenant plus que jamais, de la primordialité du travail collaboratif et interdisci- plinaire entre éducateurs, conservateurs, curateurs, et public.