MUSEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA 2016 /05 /02 M 2016 B /ROČNÍK/VOLUME USEOLOGICA RUNENSIA ČÍSLO/NUMBER 05 02 FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA, FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA, ÚSTAV ARCHEOLOGIE A MUZEOLOGIE
BRNO 2016
ISSN 1805-4722 (print) ISSN 2464-5362 (online)
3 2016 /05 /02
OBSAH ČÍSLA/CONTENTS
ÚVODNÍ SLOVO/EDITORIAL strana 4
STUDIE/ARTICLES
BRUNO BRULON SOARES* Provoking museology: the geminal thinking of Zbyněk Z. Stránský strana 5
PETER VAN MENSCH* Metamuseological challenges in the work of Zbyněk Stránský strana 18
FRANÇOIS MAIRESSE* What is Zbyněk Z. Stránský’s “influence” on museology? strana 27
FRANCISCA HERNÁNDEZ – J. PEDRO LORENTE* Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský and Spanish Museology strana 37
MARKUS WALZ* Too early, too late: the relevance of Zbyněk Z. Stránský for German museology strana 44
BERNADETTE BIEDERMANN* The theory of museology. Museology as it is – defined by two pioneers: Zbyněk Z. Stránský and Friedrich Waidacher strana 51
LENKA MRÁZOVÁ* Remarks on the role of Z. Z. Stránský in conceptual development of the curriculum of Brno museology strana 65
METODICKÉ A INFORMAČNÍ TEXTY/ METHODICAL AND INFORMATIVE TEXTS
EIN UNERSETZBARER. ZUM ABLEBEN VON ZBYNĚK Z. STRÁNSKÝ/ THE IRREPLACEABLE ONE. ON THE DEMISE OF ZBYNĚK Z. STRÁNSKÝ strana 74 Friedrich Waidacher ZBYNĚK ZBYSLAV STRÁNSKÝ, ICOFOM AND THE MUSEOLOGY strana 76 Hildegard K. Vieregg THE INFLUENCE OF Z. Z. STRÁNSKÝ’S IDEAS ON THE FORMATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MUSEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE OF SAINT PETERSBURG STATE INSTITUTE OF CULTURE strana 82 Maria J. Gubarenko MOJE VZPOMÍNKY NA DOCENTA PHDR. ZBYŇKA Z. STRÁNSKÉHO (26. 10. 1926–21. 1. 2016)/ MY MEMORIES OF DOCENT PHDR. ZBYNĚK Z. STRÁNSKÝ (26. 10. 1926–21. 1. 2016) strana 85 Vladimír Podborský FENOMÉN „STRÁNSKÝ“ V MÚZEJNÍCTVE NA SLOVENSKU/ THE „STRÁNSKÝ“ PHENOMENON AND SLOVAK MUSEUMS strana 90 Marcel Lalkovič † ZBYNĚK ZBYSLAV STRÁNSKÝ: ŽIVOT A DÍLO/ ZBYNĚK ZBYSLAV STRÁNSKÝ: LIFE AND WORK strana 99 Pavel Holman
*recenzované studie/peer-reviewed articles
4 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
ÚVODNÍ SLOVO EDITORIAL
Vážení čtenáři, Dear readers,
na začátku roku zastihla muzeologickou obec early this year, our museological communi- smutná zpráva o smrti českého muzeologa svě- ty was caught out by the bad news that the tového významu Zbyňka Zbyslava Stránského. world-recognised Czech museologist Zbyněk Jeho jméno je jak v domácím, tak i v meziná- Zbyslav Stránský has passed away. His name, rodním kontextu spojeno s rozsáhlou publikač- in both Czech and international context, is ní činností, v níž odborné veřejnosti představil connected with extensive publication activi- své specifické a originální pojetí muzeologie ty, by which he presented to the professional jako autonomní vědy, s organizováním uni- community his specific and original concept of verzitního muzeologického vzdělávání (Brno, museology as an autonomous discipline, and Banská Štiavnica; International Summer communicated his experience with organi School of Museology ISSOM Brno), s profesním sing the museology education in universities sdružováním a s ním spojenou mezinárodní (Brno, Banská Štiavnica; International Summer spoluprací (např. ICOFOM) i redakční prací School of Museology ISSOM Brno), with pro- (Muzeologické sešity). Svou stopu zanechal fessional associations and the related inter- také v odborném oborovém periodiku Muse- national cooperation (e. g. ICOFOM), and his ologica Brunensia, na němž participoval jako editorial work (Muzeologické sešity). He also autor a člen redakční rady. left a trace in the professional periodical Muse- Redakční rada časopisu se památce této stě- ologica Brunensia, in which he participated as žejní osobnosti brněnské muzeologie rozhodla author and member of Editorial Board. věnovat monotematické číslo, do nějž přispěla The Editorial Board decided to dedicate a mo řada současných významných představitelů nothematic issue of the journal to the memory oboru. Obsah předloženého čísla mohl být of this key personality of Brno museology i díky tomu rozdělen do dvou částí. Odborné school. Many significant representatives of studie především analyzují muzeologické my- present-day museology submitted their papers šlení Zbyňka Zbyslava Stránského a zkoumají to this special issue. The content of this issue jeho dopady na rozvoj muzeologie v minulosti is therefore divided into two parts. Profes- a současnosti. Sekce informativních a meto- sional papers mainly analyse the museological dických statí pak dává prostor vzpomínkovým thinking of Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský and pay textům někdejších souputníků, spolupracovní- attention to its impact on the past and pre ků a kolegů. Velké díky patří všem autorům, sent development of museology. The section kteří s pochopením a ochotou přijali nabíze- of informative and methodical texts comprises nou výzvu, a umožnili tak tomuto tematicky commemorative essays by Stránský’s con- ucelenému číslu vzniknout. temporaries, co-workers and colleagues. Big Podzimním číslem se Museologica Brunensia gratitude goes to all authors who with under- loučí také s dalšími osobnostmi, které nás standing and good grace took up the challenge v tomto roce opustily, a to se členem redakční and helped to give rise to this thematically rady časopisu a dlouholetým vedoucím Ústavu unified issue. archeologie a muzeologie na Masarykově With its autumnal issue, Museologica Brunen- univerzitě v Brně, Zdeňkem Měřínským, a slo- sia also bids farewell to another personalities venským muzeologem Marcelem Lalkovičem, who passed away this year, namely to Zdeněk který je autorem jednoho z textů v tomto čísle. Měřínský – member of Editorial Board of the Současně s obnovou složení redakční rady journal and long-time head of the Department proběhly také některé další změny, z nichž za of Archaeology and Museology at the Masaryk zmínku stojí zařazení periodika do vědecké University in Brno, and the Slovak museologist databáze European Reference Index for the Marcel Lalkovič, who wrote one of the articles Humanities (ERIH Plus). in this issue. Along with reconstitution of the Editorial Board also some other changes came into be- ing, for example the inclusion of the periodical in the scientific database European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH Plus).
Otakar Kirsch a Lucie Jagošová Otakar Kirsch and Lucie Jagošová
4 2016 /05 /02
STUDIE/ARTICLES
PROVOKING MUSEOLOGY: THE GEMINAL THINKING OF ZBYNĚK Z. STRÁNSKÝ1 DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-1 BRUNO BRULON SOARES
ABSTRACT/ABSTRAKT: Formování muzeologie jako vědy “If thirty or even twenty years a myšlenkový odkaz Zbyňka ago anyone had talked or written The paper intends to make a con- Z. Stránského about museology as a science, ceptual revision of the work many people would have reacted produced by the Czech museo Cílem tohoto příspěvku je kon- with a compassionate or a con- logist Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský ceptuální přehled aktivit českého temptuous smile. (1926–2016), referring to the peri- muzeologa Zbyňka Zbyslava Strán- Today this is, of course, od between 1965 to 1995, when he ského (1926–2016), které se vztahu- different.” was responsible for the attempt to jí k období mezi lety 1965 až 1995, (J. G. Graesse, Zeitschrift für Museologie und conceive a theory for museology. kdy se pokoušel vytvořit teorii Antiquitätenkunde, 1883) With his metatheory, this thinker muzeologie. Prostřednictvím této aimed to defend and sustain this metateorie se Z. Z. Stránský snažil “It is my opinion that knowledge discipline’s scientific status. In his obhájit a posílit pozici muzeolo- of one’s own history is a very works, by refuting the museum as gie jako vědního oboru. Ve svých important argument for every the study subject for this supposed pracích Stránský vysvětloval, že branch of science, when defending “science”, Stránský would discuss předmětem studia této formující se its existence.” which should be its fundamental vědy není muzeum samotné, ale že (Zbyněk Z. Stránský, Museological News, subjects of interest in its place, cre- jsou jím jiné základní oblasti zájmu, 1985, no. 8) ating specific concepts for museo čímž vytvářel specifické koncepce logy. With the terms musealia, mu- muzeologie. Prostřednictvím pojmů seality and musealization he shifts muzeálie, muzealita a muzealizace At first, there were material ob- the discipline’s focus from the mu- přesouvá ohnisko vědeckého zájmu jects. Then, there were museums seum, as an instrument for a cer- muzeologie z muzea jako nástroje occupying the center of the branch tain end, to the processes of attri pro určitý účel k procesům přisu- that gathered specific knowledge buting value to things. His theory zování hodnoty předmětům. Jeho and practices, which has been generates, thus, the necessary foun- teorie tak vytváří potřebný základ called “museology”. Among a few dation for the museological field, pro obor muzeologie, který v sobě other pioneer thinkers, and maybe integrating theory and practice, spojuje teoretické i praktické as- the most prominent of them all, and initiating a social and scientific pekty a vyvolává společenskou Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský (1926– reflection for museology. Therefore, i vědeckou reflexi. Příspěvek pro- 2016) was responsible for the first the paper historicizes the process to pojednává o historii procesu contemporary attempt to give some of configuration of disciplinary mu- etablování muzeologie jako vědy ve conceptual structure to this new seology in Eastern Europe in order východní Evropě, který umožňuje born discipline in the second half to understand what was in the base lépe pochopit dvě základní roviny of the 20th century. In the present of the geminal thinking structur- myšlení, jež pomáhaly formovat paper we intend to revise some ing this branch of knowledge and, tento obor, a zároveň vytyčuje of his geminal ideas that are, still at the same time, appointing new i nové cíle do budoucna. today, in the bases of museological pathways for its future. thinking and that evolved in his KEYWORDS/KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA: works notably from 1965 to 1995.
museology – Stránský – Brno In chemistry, the term geminal school – musealization refers to a relationship that is es- muzeologie – Stránský – brněnská tablished between two atoms or 1 In memoriam Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský. muzeologická škola – muzealizace functional groups that are attached
5 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
to the same common atom. The logy devoted to museological the- or later would prove to be a failure.”3 concept is important because func- ory in the world. Already in the However, the proposal was ap- tional groups attached to the same 1960s and 1970s, Stránský was proved for the initiation of an ex- atom tend to behave differently considered the leading person of perimental project. The main goal, from when they are separated. the Central-European museologi- shared by both institutions, was This movement of conversion, that cal school, and, according to some the establishment of a specialized is often observed in atoms, can be voices, “Copernicus of museology”.2 training program for the museum here taken as a metaphor for the staff in “museology”. geminal ideas disseminated by First, there were museums. Then, Stránský’s museological thinking. museology. In the middle, there In this first stage of specialized Very early, in the mid-1960s, he was, and somehow there still is, training for museum professionals, conceived the foundations of a dis- Stranskian geminal thinking as the it was clear that the J. E. Purkyně cipline that connects the museum missing element for our discipli- University would not have the fi- work to theory through what he nary structure. Beyond defending nancial means or even the person- understood as museology. museology as a science, Stránský’s nel to properly ensure its continu- ideas dislocated the focus of muse- ous operation. For this reason, the His metatheory specifically de- um studies from the collections and teaching of museology in the new signed for museology was the the very museums, to the process- Department was dependent on pro- linking element that was missing es that constitute them: musealia, fessionals from the museum staff for the transformation of museum museality and musealization would and some collaborators from other practice, with the goal to attend to be his key concepts to understand Czech museums.4 The challenge social needs that were in the base the full process of attributing value taken on by these museum work- of the development of the museum to things. This chemist has created ers, who had no legitimate place institution. Saying that Stránský a new branch of studies, inaugu- at a university, was to create and has founded the discipline as we rating a museological school and defend a theoretical conception of know it in the 21st century might provoking the awakening of a theo- museology, as well as a structured not be an exaggeration if we con- retical consciousness for museology system of thought that could justify sider what was the main motivation that is indispensable for any study the existence of this discipline in for his ideas: to create a corpus of in this area today. the framework of university educa- specific knowledge that could be tion. Furthermore, at the same time systematically taught for training The museum field and museolo- that museology should prove to museum professionals. His project, gy: the origins of the Brno School be theoretically based, its training first initiated in Brno, would gain should present practical results for followers in virtually every part of The history of museology as an aca museum work. Hence, according to the world, first with the Interna- demic discipline begins in a muse- the Faculty dean, in 1974, the gra tional Committee for Museology – um. It was the year of 1962, when duated professionals in this branch ICOFOM, created in 1977, and with some professionals of the Moravian of studies: his International Summer School of Museum, in Brno, Czechoslovakia, Museology – ISSOM (1986–1999). have presented to the Philosophi are equipped – as has been shown cal Faculty of the J. E. Purkyně mainly by their diploma theses – Born in Kutná Hora, the old University the proposal of creating not only theoretically, but also for Czechoslovakia, in 26th October, a Department of Museology, institu- the efforts to work out a new and 1926, Zbyněk Z. Stránský – as he tionally connected both to the mu- truly progressive form of museum used to sign his papers – studied seum and the university. The idea work, fully conscious of the impor- history and philosophy at Charles was seen by many “as an attempt tance and specific role of the muse- University, in Prague, from 1946 to to enforce a measure which had no um in society and able, therefore, 1950. During the 1950s, he worked prospect of success and which sooner to perform really fundamental, pio- in several Czech museums and in neer work in the urgent qualitative 1962 he was appointed the head of the innovative Department of Mu- seology of the Moravian Museum 2 DOLÁK, Jan. Museologist Zbyněk Zbyslav Strán- ský – Basic Concepts. In BRULON SOARES, Bruno, 3 See the statement of Milan Kopecký, dean of the and the J. E. Purkyně University, Anaildo Bernando BARAÇAL and Luciana Menezes J. E. Purkyně University in 1974, in STRÁNSKÝ, in Brno. There, he has established, DE CARVALHO. Stránský: a bridge Brno-Brazil/ Zbyněk Z. Brno: Education in Museology. Museo- Stránský: uma ponte Brno-Brasil. Papers from the logical Papers V, Supplementum 2, 1974. under the influence of Jan Jelínek III Debates Cycle in Museology, Rio de Janei- (1926–2004), the museum director, ro, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de 4 Kopecký, Milan, in STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: Janeiro – UNIRIO, International Committee for Education in Museology. Museological Papers V, the first teaching school of museo Museology – ICOFOM, unprinted. Supplementum 2, 1974, p. 8.
6 2016 /05 /02
transformation of the running of its practice? In reality, research museological education and for museums.5 developed on the very museum the dissemination of pioneer ideas collections was held by university on museology. With its innovative The craved transformation was scholars. What was left, then, for organization aligning the practice in the very museum as a space museum professionals as know in the Moravian Museum with the of work for these professionals, ledge producers? theoretical reflection under the aus- but further – and indistinctly, pices of the Philosophical Faculty according to the ICOM president A drastic transformation in the of a university, the school marked and director of the Moravian Mu- profile of these professionals would momentarily the conception of mu- seum, Jan Jelínek – of “making take place in the Moravian Museum seology as a scientific discipline, a real profession of museum work.”6 in the 1960s. Stránský, as head of justified in its theory and methods, For Jelínek, the profession is not the recently created Department primarily, only in the provocative a question of whether a person is or of Museology, would master a way ideas proposed by Stránský. These is not employed in a museum, but through which his theory, taught as ideas, that came from a museum primarily whether this person has “museology” in this very museum, professional, would gain a certain acquired the specific knowledge. would revolutionize practice and centrality in the academic produc- In this sense, in the beginning of assure a place for museologists as tion in Eastern and Central Eu- the 1960s, the question frequently thinkers and researchers, instead of rope when several new museology posed by museum workers was: mere museum technicians. schools were created in the region “from where should an employee or under the influence of the Czech specially the beginner acquire such The years of 1964 and 1965 were education project in the following a specialized knowledge?” marked by public museological decades. seminars organized by the depart- In fact, in the context in which ment of the faculty and the Moravi- In 20th June, 1968, the students several of the so-called contem- an Museum together. They had the of the first class of museology re- porary sciences were being con- double aim of, from one side, test- ceived their university diplomas figured, a museum professional ing the solution for some museolog- in Brno.10 As reported by Stránský, wouldn’ t know the difference ical problems and, from the other, most of them were museum direc- exactly between the work he or advertising museology. Between tors or professionals who already she is carrying out as a specialist 22nd and 23rd March, 1965, the first had a degree in another discipli- in the environment of a museum – museological symposium count- nary field. The museology course for example, in biology, zoology, ed with the wide participation of had the duration of two years, anthropology or archeology – and scholars beyond the general public, with four sessions composed of one the work of his/her colleagues em- when the question on the scientific hundred lessons each, including ployed as teachers at a university character of museology was put.8 theoretical courses and practical or research institute.7 Their prac- According to Stránský, through lessons. The themes of the classes tice, in general, was determined by these seminars, several participants were divided between general mu- other specialties whose focus was were motivated to study museology. seology and special museology. In in the museum collections as pro In the middle of 1965, the Ministry the end of the course, students had ducts of different sciences and the of Culture approved the proposal to defend a theoretical thesis in specific knowledge produced from to create a post-graduate program museology. With the graduation of them. Meanwhile, there was not in museology in Brno, allowing the the first class, Stránský would com- a branch of studies dedicated to the system of education in the country ment on the accomplishment: museum processes, its function and to train professionals in different organization. levels.9 On this occasion it is necessary to mention that it was for the first Was the work of museum profes- The Brno School was recognized time that the expert study of muse- sionals being limited by the very by the strong theoretical scope of ology was realized within the scope collections they helped to preserve? of university studies and where the 8 For Stránský, with the goal to discuss museo Was the museum devoid of a spe- logy as a science and its teaching, this symposium graduates were awarded the exten- cial knowledge produced from witnessed the growing interest of a wide group sion of their expert qualification by of scientists – and not only museum profession- 11 als – for museology. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: the field of museology. 5 Idem, p. 8. Education in Museology. Museological Papers V, 6 Jelínek, Jan, in STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: Supplementum 2, 1974, p. 18. 10 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. The first museology Education in Museology. Museological Papers V, graduates in Brno. ICOM News/Nouvelles de 9 The post-graduate course in museology began Supplementum 2, 1974, p. 10. l’ICOM, 1969, June, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 61–62. its activities in the semester between 1965 and 7 Idem, p. 10. 1966. Idem, p. 19. 11 Idem, p. 62.
7 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
According to the course structure the 20th century and even before,15 in the English language.18 Accused determined by Stránský, “general thanks to the attempt to obtain of fabricating a philosophical the- museology” consisted in “problems academic legitimacy by some Czech ory of the Museum, only taught relating to the conception of muse- museum professionals, it would at the J. E. Purkyně University, in ology” considered as a “scientific gain a new dimension, from the Brno, in fact Stránský and his col- branch”, and mainly composed 1960s, providing the necessary leagues were talking about changes of theoretical contends involving bases for museum work. In this in the conception of the museum documentation, selection and com- perspective, museology would be that were being noticed around the munication; “special museology” configured as a discipline of the in- world. They established a grand followed the structure of “general terstices, existing between two pro- part of what would become, in the museology”, but referred to con- fessional spheres: the practice, that following decades, the museological crete problems resulting from the is not necessarily limited by the theory mostly disseminated within correlation between museology and empirical universe of the museum; ICOFOM. related branches. The concluding and reflexive theory, that would part of the course was concentra make museum professionals (or The idea of a theoretical base ted in questions selected from the museologists) become, rather than for museology, was motivated by field of museography, whose em- mere technicians, real thinkers. Jelínek’s strong belief in the fact phasis was in the factors resulting that museum work needed theoret- from the “institutional character ICOFOM and the international ical studies – a motivation that was of the museum and techno-organi role of Stranskian theory later shared by Stránský. In fact, zational factors that condition its university disciplines in Czechoslo- functioning.”12 It is true that, in its initial stages, vakia required a theoretical base Stranskian theory has generated to be a science, defining science In effect, what has marked the Brno a confusion in the interpretation more broadly than the Anglos-Sa School, in comparison to other of commonly used categories and xon definition of only the physical schools of museology in the world, expressed chaos exposing muse- world with tangible studies of cause was Stránský’s claim for the statute ology’s anti-structure. Thanks to and effect.19 It was only in the mid- of science for museology. The term, the uses of terms unknown by the 1980s, with the worldly recognized that is more widely spread after the majority of thinkers of other re- ISSOM, organized by the Moravian 1950s presenting the derivatives gions, the terminology employed Museum and with support from museological and museologist, ap- in the first papers and in classes UNESCO, that the theory developed plied, in general, to all that refers was much criticized.16 According to strictly in the Brno context would to the museum and the exercise of Suely Cerávolo, the use of what the become known internationally and the museum practice.13 In France, author calls a “lexicon of Brno”17 respected by peers of scholars and for instance, this wide notion of didn’ t facilitate the full compre- museum workers. museology would compete with the hension of the museological themes term museal; the same would hap- for the ones who weren’ t familiar Since the beginning of the decade, pen in North American countries with it. Terms such as “musealia”, a part of this theory would start to where the notion would be close to “museality”, “museistic”, among circulate in the world thanks to the museum business;14 such an impreci- others, were not seen in the West, efforts of the Czechs Jan Jelínek sion is analogous in the context of and did not present an equivalent and Vinoš Sofka (1929–2016), with Latin-American countries as well. the realization of the first ICOFOM publications dealing with subjects
Museology, a term that acquired 15 On the history of the term until the 20th cen- that were central for the configu different connotations throughout tury, see AQUILINA, Janick Daniel. The Babelian ration of scientific museology, Tale of Museology and Museography: a history in along with the organization of words. Museology: International Scientific Eletronic Journal, 2011, no. 6, pp. 1–20; and DESVALLÉES, the committee’s first international André and François MAIRESSE. Dictionnaire symposiums. In 1980, one of the 12 Idem. encyclopédique de muséologie. Paris: Armand Colin, first sessions held in Mexico, dur- 13 DESVALLÉES, André. Cent quarante termes 2011. muséologiques ou petit glossaire de l’exposition. In 16 Burcaw (1981), in CERÁVOLO, Suely Moraes. DE BARY, Marie-Odile and Jean-Michel TOBELEM Da palavra ao termo – um caminho para compreen- 18 Idem, p. 125. (eds.). Manuel de muséographie. Petit guide à l’usage der a museologia. São Paulo: Universidade de São 19 Of course, Jelínek was an anthropologist by des responsables des musées. Biarritz: Séguier, Paulo, Escola de Comunicação e Artes, 2004. PhD training and this also brought him to look for 1998, pp. 205–251. Thesis. understanding of the need for mankind to collect 14 Idem. 17 CERÁVOLO, Suely Moraes. Da palavra ao ter- and display. NASH, Suzanne. Interview for the spe- mo – um caminho para compreender a museologia. cial Project The History of Museology, International São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Committee for Museology – ICOFOM, 2 December, Comunicação e Artes, 2004. PhD Thesis. 2015.
8 2016 /05 /02
ing the ICOM General Conference, the committee creates, between terms and concepts for museology; have been devoted to the theme of the years 1985 and 1986, a work- the second, coordinated by Strán- “the systematics and the theory of ing group for the organization of ský, was presented in the form of systems in museology.”20 The first a Treatise on museology joining an encyclopedical dictionary, which issue of a bilingual international ICOM’s project, dating from 1978, the author denominated “a pre- journal was published in the same to organize a compendium of muse- liminary version of a Museological year, in which authors from differ- um theory. Stránský was assigned Encyclopedia.”27 The document by ent origins discussed the notion of to coordinate this group, proposing Desvallées was widely accepted, a scientific museology.21 The wide research on the already known the- while Stránský’s version of a possi- dissemination of the first issue, in oretical works in museology.24 Also ble dictionary was rejected, being both sides of a politically divided in the 1980s, and in connection considered by most of the members Europe, resulted in the organiza- to this first project, Stránský was and peers as “incompatible with con- tion of a second issue in 1981.22 going to work for the organization temporary epistemology.”28 Stránský, along with Anna Grego of a Dictionarium Museologicum,25 rová and other Eastern European supposed to be based on termino- Afterwards, the research done authors published in both issues logical research and published in in this area naturally followed and became known in different twenty different languages. Indeed, Desvallées’ methodology, and parts of the world. it was not “the elaboration of a sys- Stránský, especially after leaving tem of museology, but merely a clas- the direction of the ISSOM, in The committee for museology had sification of a relatively extensive set 1998, decreased his participation at embraced the theoretical notions of words.”26 During the most part of ICOFOM meetings. The desire for disseminated, at first, from Czecho that decade, he played a prominent the organization of an integrated slovakia, allowing these ideas to role in these ICOFOM projects and theory for museology in a great influence different museologists in theoretical research both with- part influenced by Stránský’s and schools of museology around in this committee and in his own thinking, however, have stayed the globe. Until the beginning of Department. in the center of the committee’s the 1990s, ICOFOM had expressed debates for the following years.29 its mission to “establish museology Later, during the ICOFOM annual as a scientific discipline.”23 Strán- symposium of 1993, in Athens, Concepts and theorizations: is ský has continually influenced Greece, a permanent research there an integrated system for this committee and participated in project entitled Terminology of museology? several of its meetings, becoming Museology was created, aiming an elected member of its Executive to foster a system of basic terms In 1980, based on his studies from Board in 1986. and concepts for museology. The the precedent decades, Stránský project evolved to the idea of cre- defined museology as a“ scientific Since its initial years, ICOFOM has ating a Thesaurus Museologicus, autonomous discipline whose subject shared some of ICOM’s concerns which would be coordinated by of knowledge is a specific approach with a terminology for the muse- the French museologist André Des- of man to reality”, establishing that um field. In one of the initiatives, vallées. In 1997, the first results of this project were presented to the 27 Stránský (1998) cited after SCHEINER, Tereza 20 JELÍNEK, Jan. Letter from the Chairman. C. Termos e conceitos da museologia: con- Museological News. Semi-Annual Bulletin of the ICOFOM members in two separate tribuições para o desenvolvimento da Museologia International Committee of ICOM for Museology, sections: the first, a selection of como campo disciplinar. Mast Colloquia, 2008, 1981, may, no. 1. terms organized by Desvallées, pri- vol. 10, p. 213. Documentação em Museus, Museu 21 See SOFKA, Vinoš (ed.). MUWOP: Museological de Astronomia e Ciências Afins – Mast, Rio de Working Papers/DOTRAM: Documents de Travail oritizing the history of fundamental Janeiro. en Muséologie. Museology – Science or just practical 28 SCHEINER, Tereza C. Termos e conceitos da museum work?, 1980, vol. 1. museologia: contribuições para o desenvolvimen- 24 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Working Group on the 22 The Editorial Board have received twenty to da Museologia como campo disciplinar. Mast Treatise on Museology – aims and orientation. new articles for the second issue of the Museo- Colloquia, 2008, vol. 10, p. 213. Documentação em Museological News, Semi-Annual Bulletin of the logical Working Papers. A third issue was being Museus, Museu de Astronomia e Ciências Afins – International Committee of ICOM for Museology, planned, and it intended to discuss the theme of Mast, Rio de Janeiro. 1985, September, no. 8, pp. 25–28. “the object/subject of museology”. However, for 29 The Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de Muséolo- the lack of financial resources it could not be or- 25 An initiative of ICOM’s International Commit- gie, directed by André Desvallées and François ganized. SOFKA, Vinoš. A message from Dr. Sofka. tee for Documentation – CIDOC and the UNESCO Mairesse, and published in 2011, is a testimony Museological News, Semi-Annual Bulletin of the Center of Documentation, since 1976, joined by to that fact, as a product of all previous debates International Committee of ICOM for Museology, the International Committee for the Training of and showing a great influence from Stránský’s 1981, may, no. 1. Personnel – ICOTOP, and, later, by ICOFOM. ideas and of his terminology. See, for example, 23 ICOFOM – International Committee for Muse- 26 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Working Group on the chapter “Objet [de musée] ou muséalie,” in ology. Museological News. Semi-Annual Bulletin of terminology. Museological News, Semi-Annual DESVALLÉES, André and François MAIRESSE. the International Committee of ICOM for Museology, Bulletin of the International Committee of ICOM for Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie. Paris: 1992, June, no. 15. Museology, 1985, September, no. 8, p. 29. Armand Colin, 2011, pp. 385–419.
9 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
“the nature of museology is that of ther was its place in the system of museum,”38 Stránský intended to a social science” contributing to the sciences.33 separate the “instrument” – or the “understanding of human society.”30 means, i.e., the museum – and the It was not the first time that muse- Even so, Stránský has appointed “end” to which it serves. He alle ology was being referred to as sci- that there were objective reasons ges, in effect, what could have been ence, however, in most of the pre- for the “birth of museology as a sci- considered obvious in the context vious definitions, it was constantly ence,”34 however, its internal pre- of post-war museums, which is identified as “the science which aim requisite, i.e., the logical structure, the fact that the museum, as an is the study of the mission and or- was inexistent. His question on the institution that serves to a certain ganization of museums.”31 What had character of museology, then, made end, could not be the study subject changed, then, in the Stranskian him think on the theoretical base of a science. Nevertheless, and in conception of the term? of the very theory.35 In other words, a tautological approach, according Stránský has built a metatheoret- to some of his critics,39 he would What was distinct in this thinker’s ical problematic as the starting propose that museology’s subject approach from all the others be- point for structuring the scientific of study should be searched in the fore him was the fact that beyond discipline, introducing the notion very museum work, in the “syste merely stating that museology is of a metamuseology.36 The term des- matic and critical” task of produc- a science, he tried to prove it. In ignates “the theory whose subject ing the museum object or musealia, his structural theory, Stránský was is museology in itself”, in a certain in Stranskian terminology. committed to the investigation of way being strictly bound to museol- essential points considered by him ogy, but also related to philosophy, This thinker was, then, responsible as indispensable for the constitu- to history and to the theory of sci- for the dislocation of museology’s tion of a scientific discipline: ence and culture. subject from the museum, as a his- (1) first, a science must have de- toric institution, to museality – un- fined a specific subject of study; (2) In his metamuseological approach, derstood as a “specific documen- then, a science must use its own set the first problem raised concerned tary value.”40 This last concept, of methods; (3) a science must have museology’s subject of study. Strán- central to his theory, would lead a specificterminology , a language; ský proposed some disconcerting Stránský to conceive the cognitive (4) and, at last, it must be based on questions for the field under de- intention of museology as the scien- a theoretical system.32 The search velopment. With his initial dec- tific interpretation of an “attitude for scientific legitimation, thus, laration, in which he denies the of man to reality”. In his opinion, should be followed by the conco museum as the scientific subject,37 this seizing of the museum char- mitant construction of a theoretical the author opens the way towards acter of things, which he called system of museology accordingly a long process of self-reflection that “museality”, must be “in the center to the framework of contemporary marked museology in its bases in of the gnoseological intention of sciences. This is due to the fact Eastern Europe. museology”41 as this discipline’s sci- that, entific task, delimiting its position By stating that the “subject of mu- within the system of sciences. So far it has not been possible to seology is not and cannot be the substantiate the delimitation of The rupture with the vague idea of museology on an appropriate level a museology strictly devoted to the as an individual branch of science, study of museums, as much as the mainly because the basic questions proposition of the museality notion, of the subject, the methods and allowed Stránský to associate muse- 33 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: Education in Mu- the system of museology were not seology. Museological Papers V, Supplementum 2, ological theory to museum practice. decided and consequently, nei- 1974, p. 25. 34 Idem, p. 26. 38 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Předmět muzeologie. In STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník materiálu 35 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Předmět muzeologie. prvého muzeologického symposia. Brno: Moravian In STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník materiálu Museum, 1965, p. 33. prvého muzeologického symposia. Brno: Moravian 30 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as a Science Museum, 1965, p. 31. 39 See DESVALLÉES, André and François MAIR- (a Thesis). Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, p. 39. ESSE. Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie. 36 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Introduction à l’étude Paris: Armand Colin, 2011. 31 RIVIÈRE, Georges-Henri. Stage régional de la muséologie. Destinée aux étudiants de l’École d’études de l’Unesco sur le rôle éducatif des musées Internationale d’Été de Muséologie – EIEM. Brno: 40 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: Education in (Rio de Janeiro, 7–30 septembre 1958). Paris: Université Masaryk, 1995. Museology. Museological Papers V, Supplementum UNESCO, 1960, p. 12. 2, 1974, p. 28. 37 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Předmět muzeologie. 32 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as a Science In STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník materiálu 41 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology and Muse- (a Thesis). Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, prvého muzeologického symposia. Brno: Moravian ums. ICOFOM Study Series – ISS, 1987, no. 12, p. p. 33–39. Museum, 1965, pp. 30–33. 289.
10 2016 /05 /02
In this perspective, he would not On the contrary, at first, his theo- It is true that all that is part of mu- disregard the museum as a subject retical conceptions, drawn from the seology, but those are only means of interest but he would understand possibilities of international dia- to achieve certain aims. Museology it as only one of the possibilities of logues, would promote a constant must explain why we do all that, materializing this specific human and critical look to museology, ca- why a certain object is musealized, approach to reality. What he in- pable of the permanent questioning why we contradict natural changes tended, therefore, was to make mu- of its own structure. Such a critical and disappearances and why […] seum work directly dependent on museological consciousness, we we preserve certain elements of museological efforts.42 In his per- may say that we have inherit it in reality.46 spective, the museum practice must our days. not only be understood as indistinct First approaching the very objects from museological theory, but also From metamuseology to just mu- to justify the existence of this sci- it has in the second its main source seology: Stránský’s conceptual ence of values – or the science of for innovation and improvement: triad the construction of values – attri buted to things, Stránský used the Were we to hide our heads in the By defending that “the museum neologism musealia (“muzeálie”, sand and stick to the traditional phenomenon is truly the expres- in Czech), built from Latin, to re- methods and procedures, and re- sion of a specific relation of man to fer, museologically, to the muse- main satisfied with the current reality,”45 and that such a relation, um object. Namely, those objects practice, museum work would get to be studied and properly under- whose value could be perceived into increasing contradiction with stood, demands specific knowledge beyond the specific quality they the general progress of society; that is not provided by other exist- may present to the other fields museums would be pushed onto the ent sciences, Stránský sustained the of knowledge that study them in periphery of social interest and in statute of science for museology, museums, but considering all their the end they would lose not only developing his metatheoretical con- documentary possibilities from the their social function but also their ceptual base. His theory of theory point of view of museology. The raison d’être.43 had the purpose to, more than term was introduced in the middle raise ontological questions for mu- of the 1960s and it was refined His metamuseological reflection seology, or finding their answers, in Stránský’s works since then, as was the mark zero for the deve structuring a theoretical corpus of well as the other concepts that he lopment of a critical thinking on concepts and methods serving as proposed. museology and its scientific subject a basis for the conscious practice. in Central and Eastern Europe. The musealia, or museum objects, The theory of museology, born from The concepts formulated and de- have museological relevance be- this reflection, was systematically fended by this author that have had cause they can be perceived, as taught to professionals and scholars a central role in his works, in fact, put by the anthropologist Jean from all around the world in the were not dealing with the museum Bazin, as “available objects”,47 be- renowned ISSOM, at Masaryk Uni- in its organization and functions. ing available to different purposes versity.44 It was, also, widely deba Differently, they were presen and interpretations, or, as “becom- ted, with the support of Jelínek and ted to his students and readers as Sofka, from the end of the 1970s museological concepts, that would and the beginning of the 1980s, supposedly justify the existence within ICOFOM. Nevertheless, the of the scientific discipline he was 46 “Pour remplir à la fois sa mission scientifique, mais aussi sa mission humanitaire, la muséologie ne theory as envisaged by Stránský defending: peut se limiter aux problèmes de la gestion du musée, and some of his followers would de l’installation d’une vitrine ou de la conservation never exist as an integrated system. In order to accomplish, at the same de tel ou tel objet. Il est vrai que tout ceci fait partie de la muséologie, mais ce ne sont que des moyens time, its scientific mission, but also servant à atteindre certains objectifs. La muséologie doit expliquer pourquoi nous faisons tout cela, pour- Idem, p. 290. its humanitarian mission, museo 42 quoi tel objet est muséalisé, pourquoi nous contra- 43 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: Education in Mu- logy cannot limit itself to the prob- rions les changements et les disparitions naturels seology. Museological Papers V, Supplementum 2, lems of museum management, of et pourquoi […] nous préservons certains éléments 1974, p. 26. de la réalité. ”, in the original. Translation by the showcases installation or the con- author. See STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Introduction The Masaryk University was founded in Brno 44 servation of one object or another. à l’étude de la muséologie. Destinée aux étudiants in 1919 and it is currently the second largest de l’École Internationale d’Été de Muséologie – EIEM. university in the Czech Republic. In 1960, the Brno: Université Masaryk, 1995, p. 6. university was renamed Jan Evangelista Purkyně 45 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Introduction à l’étude BAZIN, Jean. Des clous dans la Joconde. In University, taking the name of the Czech biologist. de la muséologie. Destinée aux étudiants de l’École 47 BAZIN, Jean. Des clous dans la Joconde. L’anthro- In 1990, following the Velvet Revolution it re- Internationale d’Été de Muséologie – EIEM. Brno: pologie autrement. Toulouse: Anacharsis, 2008, gained its original name. Université Masaryk, 1995. p. 523.
11 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
ing-objects”48 breaking with their 1970,51 being proposed as museolo- The conceptual problem posed symbolic or documentary unity. gy’s true subject of study. The first by these authors possibly led the In effect, the museum object is not attempts to define the term, how Czech thinker to ask what dis- the same as the object in a muse- ever, have presented logical prob- tinguishes a musealia from other um, being its attributed value less lems. If museology studies the val- objects in collections. The question related to an institutional status ue existent in things, or their mu- of value, or of its social attribution, and more determined by the social seum quality, this discipline would would finally triggers in Stránský’s frameworks that give them a muse- be closer to a prescriptive branch of thinking an interest for the process ological status. knowledge than to a social science. of musealization, closing his con- Nevertheless, according to Stránský ceptual triad for museology. The This would be the specific museo- himself, the role of the museologist notion of “musealization” (“muzea logical perspective on the objects shouldn’ t be one of pointing out lizace”) was explored by Strán- on which Stránský has projected the value in things, but the one of ský only late in his works. In the the notion of “bearers of museali- understanding how and why cer- journals of museology published ty”, introducing, thus, the second tain objects acquire value. by the Moravian Museum and key-concept of his theory. As he put the J. E. Purkyně University from it: Due to this imprecision, the idea 1969 to 1986, the term appears for of an object bearer of museality the first time in 1972, and then it The task of museology is there- would be put under questioning would reappear only in 1979.54 fore – at least in our opinion – to and Stranskian theory would suf- perceive and identify such docu- fer with severe criticism, notably In effect, the term was not created ments which in every respect best throughout the 1980s. The mu- by Stránský himself, it was appro- represent certain social values and seologist from the ancient Ger- priated by him. According to Vá- therefore warrant selection, collec- man Democratic Republic, Klaus clav Rutar, the term has appeared tion and presentation in the inte Schreiner, for instance, hasn’ t con- in museological textbooks in the rest of society’s development. ceived museality as the property of end of the 1970s and the beginning an object as such but as something of the 1980s, being appropriated To give a name to this specific that is attributed to the object only at the same time by authors from documentary value, conditioned in the context of a particular, spe- other fields of knowledge who have by the quality of the bearer, we cialized discipline. According to mentioned it in works from the are trying to introduce the term Schreiner, there cannot be a value same period, such as Jean François Museality. “in itself” and the concept of mu- Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard, as seality in the Stranskian sense is well as in the works by the philo Simultaneously, to name the bearer the product of a “bourgeois-impe- sopher Hermann Lübbe, quoted by document itself we prefer the ex- rialist axiology”. He considers that Stránský as the main source of this pression Musealia.49 the philosophical value propagated notion.55 is “timeless, classness and gene And he continues: rally not human” and that, as such, Musealization has been defined it “absolutizes the bourgeois class by Stránský as “the acquisition of Summing up: interests.”52 As noted by Peter van the museum quality”, or, even, an The object of the knowledge-acquiring Mensch, Stránský would modify expression of the universal human intention of museology is museality, con- the concept of museality over the tendency to preserve, against all ceived in the context of the entire histo years, changing its sense from natural change and degradation, ric, present and future social function.50 a value category to the “specific the elements of objective reality value orientation” itself.53 which represent the cultural values Hence, the concept of museality (“muzealita”), understood as the “quality” or “value” of musealia, 51 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Múzejnictvo v relácii teórie a praxe. Múzeum, 1970, roč. XV, no. 3, appeared in Stránský’s works in pp. 173–183. 52 SCHREINER, Klaus. Forschungsgegenstand der 54 RUTAR, Václav. Geneze pojmů muzeálie, 48 BRULON, Bruno. Os objetos de museu, entre Museologie und Disziplingenese. Neue Museum- muzealita a muzealizace na stránkách Muzeolo- a classificação e o devir. Informação & Sociedade: skunde, 1987, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 4–8, passim. gických sešitů v letech 1969–1986. Museologica Estudos, jan./abr. 2015, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 25–37, 53 MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a Methodology of Brunensia, 2012, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 11. passim. Museology. PhD Thesis [online]. Zágreb: University 55 Stránský (2000, p. 31) cited after RUTAR, Vá- 49 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: Education in Mu- of Zágreb, 1992 [cit. 2007-07-27]. Available from clav. Geneze pojmů muzeálie, muzealita a muzea- seology. Museological Papers V, Supplementum 2, www:
12 2016 /05 /02
that man, as a cultural being, needs This musealized reality is common- tached to a net of values built by to preserve for its own purpose.56 ly mistaken for the concept of cul- societies and, at the same time, fed tural heritage, though, to Stránský, by musealization. Thanks to the With his appropriation of such this expression is too vague, and perception of museology as a sci- a concept, Stránský re-considers it designates a passive approach. ence that studies, not the values in “the subject of museology”, noting Musealization, on the contrary, themselves, but the social construc- that it “must be, thus, centered in depends on an active approach, tion of values, Stránský is led to what motivates musealization, in that involves three ramifications assign relevance to the concept of what conditions the museality and foreseen in his theory for museo musealization. non-museality of things.”57 But as logy: selection, thesaurization and he recognizes: “it is only by muse- communication. Derivative form these initial re- ology’s specific methods that it is marks on museology’s central possible to discover what makes an As selection, he understood the concepts, other theoretical ap- ordinary object become a museum basic theory that allows to iden- proaches to the discipline would be object.”58 This process, conceived tify the “museality potential” in developed. In Stránský’s definition by him as a universal one, of at- objects, which can be provided for theoretical museology we can tributing value to things, would by different scientific disciplines. envisage the foundation for what demand that museology reconfigu Selection in itself, i. e., the remo Peter van Mensch defined as just red its basic aim from the task of val of a “bearer” from an original museology. This Dutch museologist inventing values to the investigation situation, would depend on the re proposes a structure for this “sci- of values themselves. These must cognition of its “museum value”.60 entific discipline” according to five be identified and studied by the Thesaurization was understood as axes: general museology, theore instructed look of the museologist, the process of inserting an object tical museology (which would be according to an axiological method- into the documentary system of equivalent to metamuseology), spe- ology that would take the place of the new reality of a collection or cial museology, historic museology an ontological methodology estab- museum. Ultimately, museologi- and applied museology.62 To these lished by museums. cal communication is the process five central areas, Stránský would throughout which a collection ac- include social museology, dedicated This way, museology’s subject of quires meaning becoming accessi- to the study of musealization in study is once again dislocated, from ble and disseminating its scientific, contemporary societies. Further- museality, as a product or “quality”, cultural or social value. For Strán- more, van Mensch takes Stranskian to musealization, as the process that ský, communication is the museo- museology to another level, seeking conducts to the specific appropria- logical approach to reality and it its professionalization. In his works, tion – creating culture – of natural creates, at the same time, a mutual the author proposes the PRC model, reality and human reality at the bound with the original reality that which refers to the museums basic same time.59 What distinguishes is established “in a qualitatively functions of Preservation, Research musealization from other forms of elevated level.”61 Therefore, the and Communication, directly in- conservation, according to Strán- specificity of museological commu- spired in Stránský’s model for mu- ský, is the decisive moment of tran- nication conditions the specificity sealization, divided, as appointed sition from material reality as it is of museological documentation. above, in selection, thesaurization presented to its elevation towards and communication. the level of the cultural, museologi- In other words, the object that cal reality. is thought by him as a priori the Stránský’s museology, therefore, “bearer of museality”, is selected initially conceived of metatheo- accordingly to its “potentiality” retical questions, would find some based on the existent values, and viable ways to the formulation of 56 “une expression de la tendance humaine univer- it may acquire new values when it some hypotheses and other provo- selle à préserver, contre le changement et la dégra- dation naturels, les éléments de la réalité objective is communicated in a museolog- cations. Finally, museology would qui représentent des valeurs culturelles que l’homme, ical speech. What could, at first, en tant qu’être culturel, a besoin de conserver dans 62 This five-fold structure is (since 1982) used by son propre intérêt.”, in the original. Translation by seem contradictory in Stranskian the Reinwardt Academie, in Amsterdam, to provide the author. See STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Introduction theory, reflects the fact that his a framework for the curriculum of museology à l’étude de la muséologie. Destinée aux étudiants initial notion of museality was at- and to provide a basic classification principle for de l’École Internationale d’Été de Muséologie – EIEM. the library of this institute. MENSCH, Peter van. Brno: Université Masaryk, 1995, pp. 28–29. Towards a Methodology of Museology. PhD Thesis 60 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: Education in Mu- [online]. Zágreb: University of Zágreb, 1992 [cit. 57 Idem, p. 19. seology. Museological Papers V, Supplementum 2, 2007-07-27]. Available from www:
13 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
find its subject of study in this in- trol over the construction of reality. a science in the contexts in which escapable process of reflexive reten- This has been the case for museum this term is being used. In order tion, throughout which some things professionals and their crave to for that to happen, a distance must are kept so that they can transmit control reality by selecting what be created between scientists and a certain knowledge through mu- should be preserved from it. their subject of study. The theory seological communication. The of museology produced in the past “specific approach of man to reali- The task of social sciences, in forty years is neither a product of ty”, mentioned by Stránský, refers, a different sense, is to understand museum practice nor the mere ex- then, to a will of musealization that the knowledge actors have of their pression of couple of philosophical leads to the social experience of own moral universes, considering ideas disseminated from Eastern museality. their standards of validation with Europe. In fact, the theory is the respect to it.65 The cognitive pow- result of a reflection developed by Stránský and Reflexive ers of the Western thought in con- these thinkers confronted with cer- Museology trolling and knowing the material tain museum practices in the differ- world are in the base of museums, ent contexts they acted. According to Joanna Overing, ex- but they cannot be the foundation ploring a recent crisis of faith in of contemporary museology. What Methodologically speaking, the philosophy over the empiricist’s is being gradually perceived with agents that make museums and paradigm of Rationality, within the possibility of a science of the their agencies must be studied by science the idea of a “single world” science is the fact that Rationali- the scientists and researchers of is being challenged.63 Turning the ty works as a limiting tool for the museology today if we intend to look to themselves and their own scientist viewpoint over the Others understand musealization. Never- actions, social scientists reveal that and specially over him/herself. The theless, when the same people play the world, from the perspective of Western fetishism for epistemologi- both roles – the scientist that is our knowledge of it, is how we view cal objects such as reason, truth and also the museum professional – the it through the paradigms we create. knowledge – or, even, the museum – scientific distance will depend on These scientists, differently from is little by little demolishing the an exercise of reflexivity on his/ philosophers who are usually not ways we relate to moralities and hers own museal practice. Here the asking social questions, are asking epistemologies different from ours. museal will be clearly separated about “moral universes” – in Over- from the museological with the arti- ing’s terms – their basic duty being Throughout most part of the fice of performance. to understand the intentions and 20th century, in the first years of objectives of actors within particu- the development of museology in The first works on museology, lar social worlds.64 Contrary to the the world, the thinkers of the “mu- by icofomian theorists, were just modern Western science and the seum” were not separated from theory and not science because empiricist’s proposition that truth their supposed subject of study. Mu- they consisted in mere reflections is amoral and facts are autonomous seum professionals were the ones lacking the reflexivity that is in from value, facts and truths can be conceiving “museology”. The sepa- part the acknowledgement of per- analyzed as being tied to different ration between scientists and their formance in the constructed truths sets of social, moral and political subject of study – that is usually and values. The study of the muse- values. constructed by specific methods – um performance today allows any hadn’t been fully accomplished in scientist to see him/herself as an Thus, all truths have their moral museology and maybe still isn’ t in actor in the stage of the museum aspect and to hope to find universal our days. Perhaps the reason we representations. Such a reflexivity and independent criteria of truth are still unable to define the subject in the making of science may re- has proven to be an unreachable of museology is that we are so close veal to be a fundamental process goal that suits only to philosophers to museums we remain their faith- that includes self-knowledge and who are still defending their con- ful hostages. the revision of paradigms.
63 Overing points out that for instance both Kuhn What differentiates, though, muse- Reflexive museology can be per- (1964) and Feyerabend (1975, 1978) forcefully ology from museum theory or muse- ceived, thus, as the permanent con- argued against the belief of Western science in a unified objective world unaffected by the um studies, even today, is the desire sciousness of museology. There is epistemic activities of the scientists themselves. of the first to be acknowledged as no denying that its first steps were OVERING, Joanna. Preface & Introduction. In in Stránský’s metamuseology. But OVERING, Joanna (ed.). Reason and Morality. Lon- don: Tavistock (A.S.A. Monographs 24), 1985, p. 2. 65 Idem, p. 5. some of the main social questions 64 Idem, p. 4. weren’ t being posed when this
14 2016 /05 /02
central thinker in the foundation As a theoretical concept, musealiza- not at all the case between museum of our discipline was working so tion is the very practical action that work and the theory of museology. lemnly with the Western concep- has founded museums. The artifi- A symbiosis would be the better tion of man-reality relations. His cial separation between theory and metaphor to explain how the two philosophical assertion reifies the practice, or museology and museo fields interact today, constituting separation of man from reality and graphy, for so long has represented the sole field of museology, embra presupposes the existence of a (ma- a difficult breach to be supplanted cing theory and practice. terial) reality that is divorced from in the heart of this discipline.69 society. Even today, in most contexts of the As Stránský has put it, if we intend world, museum professionals do to get into a creative relation with Furthermore, if we perceive the not identify as museologists, and museum practice, then we have to museum as the instrument that per- the idea of a social science that stu accept that “all that arises the need forms the relation of man to reality, dies the process of musealization for museums and all that finds its then musealization is the action in social terms is unclear. The idea materialization in museums should towards which we should direct our to find a structure encompassing be the subject of museology.”70 interest as social scientists. In this both practical museum work and There is nothing wrong with ad- sense, Stránský was being reflexive theoretical museology was Strán- mitting that disciplinary museology when affirming that the subject of ský’s biggest challenge. But his comes from museums and it is still, a “social museology” would be, in metatheory hasn’ t proved to be in a certain level, attached to them. his perspective, “the musealization convincing enough for a real scien- However, mostly thanks to Stran- of reality in the context of current tific revolution. skian geminal ideas, museology is society.”66 Even so, the human, the no longer limited to the museum. actor of musealization, is not seen What is certain, today, is that we Even though a great part of its con- as reality, but as someone who will have moved from the prescriptive temporary thinkers do not consider act on it. field of museum practice, to a re- museology a science yet – although flexive field devoted to the critical recognizing its potential to be In the case of musealization, it is study of the existent practice and perceived as a social or human sci- not “man” or things that will pre- we are finally able to produce the- ence in the near future –, most of vail, but the multiple associations67 oretical questions in order to pro- them consider the “new” subjects between them. Because associ- voke change. of study that have somehow given ations prevail, we can conceive, life to the discipline as it is being for instance, calculation without In this sense, how should a sci- taught in universities. a calculator, acceleration without entific discipline be formulating a car, or even education without relevant questions for its own What has changed, then? If in the a school.68 Musealization, then, development? For instance, how beginning of the 1980s the first exists beyond the museum. As well conscious are we of our own role attempts to summarize a theory as the hammer does not impose the in building museality? How do we for museology was based on the hitting of the nail, museums do recognize ourselves, as scientists, authors singular museum experien not impose musealization. In fact, in the process of musealization? Or ces, later, some museologists71 have museums are the mediators and in making museological communi- appointed a more realistic solution not the main actors of musealiza- cation with “true” objects? These for the scientific discipline. Re- tion; they participate in the action, are questions Stránský did not had search was the answer. The truth of but they cannot configure, in any the opportunity to ask, but we do, the matter is that no philosophical conceivable way, the sole subject of probably thanks to him. system would generate a science or museology. its subject without a considerable Some conclusions amount of empirical and theoreti-
As every metaphor has its limita- 70 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology and Museums. ICOFOM Study Series – ISS, 1987, no. 12, p. 289. 66 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Introduction à l’étude tions, in “geminal”, the prefix gem, de la muséologie. Destinée aux étudiants de l’École in Latin, denotes “twin”, which is 71 MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a Methodology of Internationale d’Été de Muséologie – EIEM. Brno: Museology. PhD Thesis [online]. Zágreb: University Université Masaryk, 1995, p. 28. of Zágreb, 1992 [cit. 2007-07-27]. Available from 69 See, for example, RIVIÈRE, Georges-Hen- www:
15 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
cal research on the very discipline menon”72 related to the terms “mu- but the scientist who is also impli- and its constitutive processes. seology”, “museography”, “theory cated in his/hers subject of study. of museum”, “museistic”,73 and so As the epistemologist who thinks What substantially prevents the on… It is fragrantly an artifice of about “the meaning of meaning”, existence of a science entitled mu- method, created as such to justify or the psychologist who thinks seology today is still the fact that the existence of a profession enti- about how people think, the museo its theoretical production and its tled museology. logist can also be seen as the one methods are marked by the Carte- who thinks about the museological sian idea of the museum designed, We can witness today new ap- “thinking” – and in this sense, as a metaphor and literally, in the proaches to museums, from a mu- Stránský wasn’ t wrong by suggest- rationalist system of knowledge seological perspective, that only ing the existence of “metatheoreti- fabricated in Western Modernity. exist because some thinkers are no cal problems” for his science. In this “museum” that organized longer attached to their very sub- objects and ideas – or ideas as ob- ject of study. In some of these stu jects – things were created to be dies, the museum is a mere instru- REFERENCES: put in the shelves of knowledge in ment for musealization, understood order to be observed, categorized, as a social process and critically AQUILINA, Janick Daniel. The Babelian counted, weighted and measured analyzed considering its cultural Tale of Museology and Museography: by the encyclopedic scientist. Man and political implications beyond a history in words. Museology: Interna- was very much separated from the institution. Their aim is to de- tional Scientific Eletronic Journal, 2011, things, and things were fully domi- construct the institutional forms no. 6, pp. 1–20. nated as passive objects in the gno- of retaining meaning through the BAZIN, Jean. Des clous dans la Joconde. In siological relation. appropriation of heritage. Some of BAZIN, Jean. Des clous dans la Joconde. these studies, based on serious re- L’anthropologie autrement. Toulouse: Museology, born in museums of search, are deeply committed to the Anacharsis, 2008, pp. 521–545. this kind and conceived by the pro- investigation of museology’s fun- BRULON, Bruno. Os objetos de museu, en- fessionals working in these institu- damental problems and they help tre a classificação e o devir. Informação tions, has inherited their dogmas. to answer many of the questions & Sociedade: Estudos, jan./abr. 2015, vol. For sciences that strongly desire to posed in the present paper. The 25, no. 1, pp. 25–37. control its own part of reality – as only reason they do so, is by work- CERÁVOLO, Suely Moraes. Da palavra ao in the traditional human sciences ing at once with practical issues termo – um caminho para compreender in general – the notion according and theoretical reflections. a museologia. São Paulo: Universidade de to which human beings invent São Paulo, Escola de Comunicação e Ar- their reality is debated with great If the study of museology is museol- tes, 2004. PhD Thesis. difficulty. The apparent solution to ogy, thus, by considering the reflex- DESVALLÉES, André. Cent quarante termes supplant the problem is, in most of ive investigation of the mediations muséologiques ou petit glossaire de l’ex- the cases, the centrality of empiri- that formalize the wide process of position. In DE BARY, Marie-Odile and cal work aiming to deconstruct the musealization, we have a concrete Jean-Michel TOBELEM (eds.). Manuel established truths and implement empirical field for this discipline de muséographie. Petit guide à l’usage des the discussion of the methods in that is both theoretical and prac- responsables des musées. Biarritz: Séguier, this process. tical. It is clear, therefore, that 1998, pp. 205–251. an effective science may conceive DESVALLÉES, André and François MAI The discussion of a specific method musealization as an agency and all RESSE. Dictionnaire encyclopédique de for museology will raise two fun- the persons and objects involved muséologie. Paris: Armand Colin, 2011. damental questions: first “how mu- in it as agents. To find the tracing 722 p. seology molds the practice?”, and of these associations would be the DOLÁK, Jan. Museologist Zbyněk Zbyslav second, “how the practice molds work of the conscious museologist, Stránský – Basic Concepts. In BRULON museology?”. Certainly, museology who is not the museum professional SOARES, Bruno, Anaildo Bernando cannot be the science that studies BARAÇAL and Luciana Menezes DE CAR- the limited and undefined universe 72 SCHEINER, Tereza C. Musée et Muséologie – VALHO. Stránský: a bridge Brno-Brazil/ of the museum. The very concept Définitions en cours. In MAIRESSE, François and Stránský: uma ponte Brno-Brasil. Papers André DESVALLEES (eds.). Vers un redéfinition du of the “museum” is used to explain musée. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2007, pp. 147–165. from the III Debates Cycle in Museology, heterogeneous experiences, to 73 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. [Without title]. In SOF- Rio de Janeiro, Universidade Federal which theorists refer as a “pheno KA, Vinoš (ed.). MUWOP: Museological Working do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – UNIRIO, Papers/DOTRAM: Documents de Travail en Muséol- ogie. Museology – Science or just practical museum work?, 1980, vol. 1, p. 43.
16 2016 /05 /02
International Committee for Museology – SCHREINER, Klaus. Forschungsgegenstand STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Working Group on ICOFOM, unprinted. der Museologie und Disziplingenese. the Treatise on Museology – aims and GLUZIŃSKI, Wojciech. Basic paper. Method- Neue Museumskunde, 1987, vol. 23, no. 1, orientation. Museological News, Semi-An- ology of museology and professional train- pp. 4–8. nual Bulletin of the International Commit- ing. ICOFOM Study Series – ISS, 1983, SOFKA, Vinoš. A message from Dr. Sofka. tee of ICOM for Museology, 1985, Septem- no. 1, pp. 24–35. Museological News, Semi-Annual Bulletin ber, no. 8, pp. 25–28. ICOFOM – International Committee for Mu- of the International Committee of ICOM TEATHER, Lynne. Some brief notes on the seology. Museological News. Semi-Annual for Museology, 1981, may, no. 1. methodological problems of museologi- Bulletin of the International Committee of SOFKA, Vinoš (ed.). MUWOP: Museological cal research. ICOFOM Study Series – ISS. ICOM for Museology, 1992, June, no. 15. Working Papers/DOTRAM: Documents Methodology of museology and professio JELÍNEK, Jan. Letter from the Chairman. de Travail en Muséologie. Museology – nal training, 1983, no. 5, pp. 1–9. Museological News. Semi-Annual Bulletin Science or just practical museum work?, of the International Committee of ICOM 1980, vol. 1. 67 p. for Museology, 1981, may, no. 1. SOFKA, Vinoš (ed.). MUWOP: Museological BRUNO BRULON SOARES LATOUR, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: Working Papers/DOTRAM: Documents de An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theo Travail en Muséologie. Interdisciplinarity Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – UNIRIO, ry. New York: Oxford University Press, in Museology, 1981, vol. 2. 98 p. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 2005. 328 p. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: Education in [email protected] MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a Methodo Museology. Museological Papers V, Sup- logy of Museology. PhD Thesis [online]. plementum 2, 1974, pp. 7–12. Zágreb: University of Zágreb, 1992 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Introduction à l’étude Bruno Brulon Soares is a Brazilian museologist and historian, PhD. [cit. 2007-07-27]. Available from de la muséologie. Destinée aux étudiants in Anthropology, and, since 2013, www:
17 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
STUDIE/ARTICLES
METAMUSEOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN THE WORK
OF ZBYNĚK STRÁNSKÝ DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-2
PETER VAN MENSCH
ABSTRACT/ABSTRAKT: the museum as subject matter field ohlas. Hlavní zásluhu na tom, že se is claimed by other disciplines: art Stránského myšlenky dostaly v ne- ICOFOM had always been a ma- history, history, ethnography, and dávné době do povědomí širšího pu- jor platform for the recognition of increasingly: cultural studies. In blika v německy mluvících zemích Stránský as one of the key theore- these contexts, there is no felt need nesou Friedrich Waidacher (Štýrský ticians from the Central European to adopt a rather rigid system and Hradec) a Christian Müller-Straten area. Outside ICOFOM his work has methodology like the one advocated (Mnichov). hardly been published in English, by Stránský. so in the English speaking museo- Z obecného hlediska si Stránský logical (or, rather museum studies) Stránský’s work on musealisation získal pozornost muzeologů po ce- world he thus remained largely un- can still be of value in a further de- lém světě tím, že vypracoval pevný known. Apart from the Czech and velopment of the concept. The chal- systém muzeologie spočívající na Slovak Republics, the most fertile lenge is to make a connection with některých specifických oborových soil for Stránský’s ideas was and the New Museology, Museum Stu principech jako jsou muzealizace is Germany. Difference should be dies and Critical Heritage Studies a muzealita. Tento systém byl velmi made between the former German discourses. It would be worthwhile užitečný při vytváření odpovídají- Democratic Republic and the Bun- to make an in-depth comparison cích studijních programů a zásadní desrepublik Deutschland. Among of the concepts of heritage as, for význam měl také pro Stránského museologists of the German Demo- example, advocated by Laurajane celoživotní snahu o definování cratic Republic, Stránský was well Smith and Stránský’s concept of muzeologie jako autonomní vědy. known and well respected. Before museality. Tento aspekt však v „západních“ ze- 1989, he was not very well received mích nevzbudil příliš velký zájem. in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Metamuzeologické výzvy v díle Kromě toho, ve většině současných Mainly thanks to Friedrich Wai- Zbyňka Stránského studijních programů se zaměřením dacher (Graz) and Christian Müller- na muzeologii/muzejnictví si mu- Straten (Munich), Stránský’s ideas ICOFOM představovala již od své- zeum jako předmět studia nárokují became recently known to a wider ho vzniku největší platformu pro jiné obory: dějiny umění, historie, German speaking audience. etablování Stránského jako jedno- etnografie a stále častěji také kultu- ho z klíčových teoretiků v rámci rologie. Proto zde není důvod zavá- In general, museologists all over the středoevropského prostoru. Mimo dět tak přísný systém a metodologii world were attracted to Stránský rámec ICOFOM nebyly jeho práce jako vytvořil a obhajoval Stránský. because he elaborated a consistent prakticky vůbec publikovány v an- system of museology built around glickém jazyce, v důsledku čehož Stránského práce na téma muzea- some discipline-specific concepts, zůstal pro muzeology (či spíše mu- lizace má i dnes svůj význam pro such as musealisation and museal- zejníky) v anglicky mluvících ze- další rozvoj muzeologické teorie. ity. Such a system was helpful in mích takřka neznámý. Kromě České Cílem je začlenění tohoto tématu developing consistent study pro- a Slovenské republiky našly Strán- do diskurzu v rámci nové muzeolo- grammes. To Stránský developing ského myšlenky živnou půdu ze- gie, muzejnictví a kritického studia a consistent system was crucial in jména v Německu. Je však potřeba kulturního dědictví. Stálo by za to his lifelong endeavour to prove that rozlišovat mezi dřívější Německou porovnat do hloubky např. koncepci museology is a genuine academic demokratickou republikou a Němec- kulturního dědictví z pohledu Lau- discipline, but this concern was of kou spolkovou republikou. Muzeolo- rajane Smithové a Stránského kon- little interest in “western” coun- gové z východního Německa Strán- cept muzeality. tries. Besides, in most of the new ského dobře znali a respektovali. museology/museum studies pro- V západním Německu však před grammes at European universities rokem 1989 nenašel příliš pozitivní
18 2016 /05 /02
KEYWORDS/KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA: Stránský’s article and recognised had in fact been created on the ba- its relevancy. My predecessor as sis of an opportunity collaboration museology – museum studies – new lecturer of museology was the Aca of French and Central European museology – critical heritage stud- demie’s director, Giljam Dusée. He museologists, but from the 1990s ies – musealisation – museality had studied at the École du Louvre onwards, the role of Latin Ameri- muzeologie – muzejnictví – nová (Paris) and became supporter of the can museologists became increas- muzeologie – kritické studium kultur- ideas of George Henri Rivière. Soon ingly important and the discourse ního dědictví – muzealizace – muze- it became clear to me that Strán- changed accordingly. ICOFOM had alita ský’s approach, and the discourse in always been a major platform for Central Europe in general, appealed the recognition of Stránský as one to me much more than Rivière’s ap- of the key theoreticians from the Allow me to start with a person- proach. This feeling was strength- Central European area. Through al anecdote. From 1977 to 1982 ened when I started to become ICOFOM, Stránský is still honoured I was Head of the Department of active in the ICOM International in Brazil where recently a confe Exhibitions and Education of the Committee for Museology (in 1982). rence was dedicated to his work.3 National Museum of Natural Histo- ICOFOM became an important Outside ICOFOM his work has hard- ry at Leiden (Netherlands). As such platform to meet colleagues – and ly been published in English.4 In the I was invited to become member to learn about their museological English speaking museological (or, of the editorial board of the jour- thinking – from the Soviet Union rather museum studies) world “this nal Museologia. The journal had (Razgon), German Democratic Re- chap from Brno” (Susan Pearce) a strong focus on the history, the- public (Jahn, Schreiner), Yugoslavia thus remained largely unknown.5 ory and practice of natural history (Maroević, Šola), Poland (Gluziński, The same can be said about the re- museums. However, the publisher, Świecimski), and Czechoslovakia ception of his work in France even Frans Heslinga, had the ambition to (Beneš, Jelínek, Stránský). Eventu- though he is frequently referred to develop the journal into an (inter- ally, I would earn my PhD degree in in the Dictionnaire encyclopédique de national) “magazine on theory and Zagreb (in 1993) with Ivo Maroević muséologie6 and mentioned as one of practice of museumwork”. Contrary as my ‘Doktorvater’. the 18 most influential museologist to the members of the editorial of all time.7 board, he was aware of the profes- In my PhD thesis2 I reflected upon sional discourse in Central Europe. the early history of ICOFOM and 3 Conference “Stránský: uma ponte Brno-Brasil”, For example, the Polish museologist analysed the contributions made by Rio de Janeiro 13-16 Oct. 2015. Chamada para tex- tos e comunicações para o III Ciclo de Debates Inter- Jerzy Świecimski (Kraków) was afore mentioned museologists to the nacional Stránský: uma ponte Brno-Brazil [online]. a regular contributor on the theory work of this committee. Interest- [cit. 2016-09-27]. Available from www:
19 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
Stránský and Germany with the harsh tone of Schreiner’s cussion, his presentation and the criticism. In fact, his reputation was others on museology and ICOFOM, Apart from the Czech and Slovak hardly harmed. The Fachschule für did not attract much interest among Republics, the most fertile soil Museologen13 at Leipzig remained the participants.17 A few years for Stránský’s ideas was and is a strong institutional basis for this later it was Friedrich Waidacher’s Germany.8 Difference should be thinking. Also after 1989 the Fach- Handbuch der Allgemeinen Muse- made between the former German schule supported Stránský’s ideas, ologie18 that played a key role in Democratic Republic and the Bun- at least as long as Katharina Flügel introducing Stránský’s thinking to desrepublik Deutschland. Among was director.14 Flügel’s Einführung a wider German speaking audience. museologists of the German Demo- in die Museologie (first edition 2005) Thanks to the legacy of Waidacher, cratic Republic, Stránský was well became a relatively widely used the ideas of Stránský are adopted known and well respected. In 1982 handbook at German museology as key subject of interest at the Uni- the Institut für Museumswesen pub- courses. versity of Graz in Austria.19 In Graz, lished in its Schriftenreihe a volume Waidacher is considered an “in alle on Museologische Forschung in der Before 1989, Stránský was not very Richtungen strahlenden museologi ČSSR.9 Among the 13 texts from the well received in the Bundesrepublik schen Komet,“20 who developed the period 1968–1982 two were written Deutschland. Wolfgang Klausewitz, theory of museology on the basis by Stránský. In his introduction ed- board member of ICOFOM, made of Stránský’s work. Museality was itor Rolf Lang emphasised the key some efforts to introduce Stránský’s role of Stránský in the development thinking. He was one of the very of Czechoslovakian museology. few West-German museologist to 17 AUER, Hermann (ed.). Museologie. Neue Wege – The year before, Stránský has also create bridges between museology Neue Ziele. Bericht über ein internationales Sympo- started to contribute to Neue Mu- in the Bundesrepublik and the mu- sium, veranstaltet von den ICOM-Nationalkomitees 10 der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreichs und seumskunde. In the same period seologies that were advocated in the der Schweiz vom 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 am Bodensee. of time Klaus Schreiner started to GDR and Czechoslovakia.15 In 1988 München: K. G. Sauer, 1989, pp. 97–98. A similar 11 conference on the characteristics of museology, publish serious criticism. This Stránský was invited to speak at organised in 1971 did not refer to discussions in Stránský-Schreiner controversy has a joint conference of ICOM-Germa- Central and East Europe at all. DYROFF, Hans- 12 Dieter (ed.). Museologie. Bericht über ein interna- been analysed by Andreas Hanslok. ny, ICOM-Austria and ICOM-Swit- tionales Symposium, veranstaltet vom Deutschen 16 Focussing on Stránský’s concept of zerland. Considering the dis- Nationalkomitee des Internationalen Museumsrates museality, Schreiner accused him (ICOM) in Zusammenarbeit mit der Deutschen 13 Since 1992 Studiengang Museologie at the UNESCO-Kommission vom 8. bis 13. März 1971 in of having adopted non-marxist Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur München. Köln: Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission, bourgeois idealist points of view. Leipzig. 1973. Schreiner’s ideas were not widely 14 FLÜGEL, Katharina. Einführung in die 18 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Allge- Museologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche meinen Museologie. Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 1993. shared among museologists of the Buchgesellschaft, 2005; FLÜGEL, Katharina and 19 BIEDERMANN, Bernadette, Marlies RAFFLER Arnold VOGT (eds.). Museologie als Wissenschaft GDR, or at least they did not agree and Nikolaus REISINGER. Geleitwort. Curiositas. und Beruf in der modernen Welt. Leipziger Jahrbuch für Museologie und museale Quellenkunde, Gespräche zur Museologie. Leipzig: Hochschule 2012–2013, no. 12-13, pp. 1–2; BIEDERMANN, für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur, 1995. This 8 Because of limited knowledge of the languages, Bernadette. Theoretische Modelle und aktuelles Leipzig tradition is also reflected in the contents I am not aware of the reception of Stránský’s ideas museales Ausstellungswesen im Spiegel des Theo- of the journal Curiositas. Jahrbuch für Museologie in other countries of Central Europe. rems der Musealität. Museologica Brunensia, 2015, und museale Quellenkunde (since 2001). Editors vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 33–41; RAFFLER, Marlies. Spiegel 9 LANG, Rolf (ed.). Museologie in der Tschechoslo- are Katharina Flügel and Volker Schimpff (former der Nation? Zugänge zur Historischen Museologie wakischen Sozialistischen Republik. Berlin, 1982. lecturer at the Fachschule für Museologen). am Beispiel der Genese von Landes- und National- In 2015 the responsibility for the journal was 10 In 1964 Stránský had already participated museen in der Habsburgermonarchie. Wien: Böhlau handed over to the museology department of the in a discussion on the specificity of museology. Verlag, 2007, p. 48. In 2002 Waidacher was ap- University of Graz, Austria. BEIER, Hans-Jürgen About this discussion, see SCHEUNEMANN, pointed as honorary professor of “Allgemeine Mu- and Volker SCHIMPFF. Editorial. Curiositas. Jan. „Gegenwartsbezogenheit und Parteinahme für seologie” at the Karl-Franzens Universität, Graz. Jahrbuch für Museologie und museale Quellenkunde, den Sozialismus“. Geschichtspolitik und regionale BIEDERMANN, Bernadette and Marlies RAFFLER. 2014–2015, no. 14-15, p. 2. Museumsarbeit in der SBZ/DDR 1945–1971. Dem Museologen, Volkskundler, Jazzmusiker, Berlin: Metropol Verlag, 2009, pp. 331–340. 15 KLAUSEWITZ, Wolfgang. Zur Geschichte der Komponisten, Arrangeur, Pädagogen, Muse- Scheunemann does not refer to Stránský’s role. Museologie (1878–1988). In AUER, Hermann (ed.). umskonsulenten, Mentor, Philosophen, Polyhistor, 11 For example in his PhD thesis (SCHREINER, Museologie. Neue Wege – Neue Ziele. Bericht über Menschen und Freund Friedrich Waidacher zum Klaus. Einführung in die Museologie – ein Beitrag zu ein internationales Symposium, veranstaltet von 80. Geburtstag. Curiositas. Jahrbuch für Museologie den theoretischen Grundlagen der Museumsarbeit. den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der Bundesrepublik und museale Quellenkunde, 2014–2015, no. 14-15, Neubrandenburg, 1982.), in Leipzig often referred Deutschland, Österreichs und der Schweiz vom 11. pp. 3–14. He was succeeded by Marlies Raffler as to as “das grüne Ungeheuer”. bis 14. Mai 1988 am Bodensee. München: K. G. Sau- professor of “Historische Museologie”. er, 1989, pp. 20–37. 12 HANSLOK, Andreas. Museologie und Archivwis- 20 BIEDERMANN, Bernadette and Marlies senschaft in der DDR. Abgrenzung und Annäherung 16 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Die theoretischen Grun- RAFFLER. Dem Museologen, Volkskundler, zweier Nachbarwissenschaften. Marburg: Tectum dlagen der Museologie als Wissenschaft. In AUER, Jazzmusiker, Komponisten, Arrangeur, Pädagogen, Verlag, 2008, Chapter 14. Also in MÜLLER-STRA- Hermann (ed.). Museologie. Neue Wege – Neue Museumskonsulenten, Mentor, Philosophen, Poly- TEN, Christian. Wie in der DDR Museologie Ziele. Bericht über ein internationales Symposium, histor, Menschen und Freund Friedrich Waidacher gemacht wurde: Die kommunistische Abrechnung veranstaltet von den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der zum 80. Geburtstag. Curiositas. Jahrbuch für mit Z. Z. Stránský. Museum aktuell, 2005, Juli/ Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreichs und der Museologie und museale Quellenkunde, 2014–2015, August, pp. 40–41. Schweiz von 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 am Bodensee. no. 14-15, p. 3. München: K. G. Sauer, 1989, pp. 38–47.
20 2016 /05 /02
re-branded as “das Stránský-Wai- museality.26 In his text he referred questions have not yet been dealt dacher Theorem der Musealität”.21 to many authors that have adopted with by existing museum theories.29 his ideas (such as Waidacher), but Stránský’s ideas are strongly sup- his opinion about his sympathi Three questions to answer ported by Christian Müller-Straten, zers is ambivalent. For example, in publisher of, among others, the 2006 he criticised the handbooks In the following I would like to museums journal Museum aktuell.22 published by two of his most ardent find an answer to three questions: Museum aktuell became Stránský’s supporters pointing out that “the (1) what attracted people to Strán- most important international plat- methodological shortcomings and the ský’s ideas, (2) why did these ideas form in the beginning of the 21st confusion evident in both publications not attract wider attention, and century.23 He used this platform reflect the state of current profes- (3) what elements from Stránský’s to justify himself and to criticise sional museology”.27 The German heritage could we use for future others. The most explicit justifica- text is even more impolite than the development. It is not my intention tion of his position was published English summary: “Beide Titel [...] to analyse Stránský’s ideas as such, in 2001.24 He described how the signalisieren leider einen erheblichen neither will I explore their origin communist regime opposed his Mangel an professioneller museolo- and development. Just one remark: work.25 In particular he comment- gische Durchdringung“. “Erhebliche little attention has been given to de- ed on the controversy with Klaus Mangel“, serious defects, a not very velopments in Stránský’s thinking. Schreiner concerning the concept of helpful qualification to create coa- For example, his definition of mu- litions. seality has changed over the years.30 In his Introduction to museology and The increased focus on New Muse- other publications, Ivo Maroević 21 BEIER, Hans-Jürgen and Volker SCHIMPFF. ology at museology and museum has adopted the concept of mu- Editorial. Curiositas. Jahrbuch für Museologie und studies programmes in Germany, seality, but refers to a definition of museale Quellenkunde, 2014–2015, no. 14-15, 31 p. 1. This would make Christian Müller-Straten tends to marginalize the type of 1970. As a consequence there is very angry. To him, Waidacher “remains a mere thinking of which Stránský was some tension between Maroević’s transporter of Stránský’s original thoughts. But as Waidacher does a lot to disseminate Stránský’s a representative, while at the same concept of museality and Stránský’s thinking, the only thing we all have to do is to time doubts persisted as to the later approach. get Waidacher back to earth and to speak abso- validity of museology as academic lutely clear on Stránský and his achievements to 28 Museology”. MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. The discipline, or even the existence What attracted people to Stránský’s contribution of Zbyněk Stránský to Museology and of a whole tradition of thinking ideas? the contribution of the Brno Museology School. In Muzealizace v soudobé společnosti a poslání muze- about museums. In November 2016 Contrary to Western Europe, there ologie/Musealization in contemporary society and a conference was organised by the was a strong urge among Central role of museology. Anthology from symposium with foreign participation on the occasion of anniversary Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität and Eastern European museolo- of the founder of the Brno museology school Zbyněk (Münster) in the Bode-Museum at gists to prove that their specialist th th Z. Stránský. Technical Museum in Brno, 8 –10 Berlin. In the brochure it is suggest- November 2006. Prague: Asociace muzeí a galerií České republiky, 2008, p. 30. ed that the aim of this conference is 29 “Die geplante Tagung ist der Bestandsaufnahme und der Grundlegung einer Philosophie des Museums 22 MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. The contri- to establish a “Philosophy of Muse- gewidmet, deren Gegenstand […] museumsphilo- bution of Zbyněk Stránský to Museology and the ums”, suggesting that fundamental sophische Fragen sind, die die etablierte Museum- contribution of the Brno Museology School. In stheorie, aber auch die ’New Museology’ allenfalls Muzealizace v soudobé společnosti a poslání muze- am Rande streifen“. In her own publications, the ologie/Musealization in contemporary society and organiser Prof. Bernadette Collenberg-Plotnikov, role of museology. Anthology from symposium with specialist on the aesthetics of the Hegelian School, foreign participation on the occasion of anniversary does not appear to be familiar with the key corpus of the founder of the Brno museology school Zbyněk of museological literature. COLLENBERG-PLOT- Z. Stránský. Technical Museum in Brno, 8th–10th NIKOV, Bernadette. Die Musealisierung des November 2006. Prague: Asociace muzeí a galerií Alltäglichen. Zur Bedeutung der Institutionen für České republiky, 2008, pp. 27–35. die Kunst. In WIESING, Lambert (ed.). Ästhetik 23 It is fair to say that Müller-Straten also und Alltagserfahrung. VII. Kongress der Deutschen published critical reviews of Stránský’s ideas (for 26 See also HANSLOK, Andreas. Museologie Gesellschaft für Ästhetik. [Jena], 2008; COLLEN- example MAROEVIĆ, Ivo. Zur Kritik der museo- und Archivwissenschaft in der DDR. Abgrenzung BERG-PLOTNIKOV, Bernadette. Kunst zeigen – logischen Theorien Zbynek Z. Stránskýs. Museum und Annäherung zweier Nachbarwissenschaften. Kunst machen. Überlegungen zur Bedeutung aktuell, 2001, Juli, pp. 2887–2892.). Marburg: Tectum Verlag, 2008 and KIRSCH, des Museums. In COLLENBERG-PLOTNIKOV, Bernadette (ed.). Musealisierung und Reflexion. 24 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Ist Museologie eine Otakar. Vysokoškolská výuka muzeologie v Brně Gedächtnis – Erinnerung – Geschichte. München: kommunistische Wissenschaft? Eine Entgegnung v době normalizace a nástupu demokratického Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2011. auf deutsche Einstellungen. Museum aktuell, April režimu. Museologica Brunensia, 2014, vol. 3, no. 5, 2001, pp. 2758–2761. pp. 12–20. 30 MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a methodology of museology. Zagreb: University of Zagreb, 1992, 25 On Stránský’s struggles with the regime, 27 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Noch eine „knapp pp. 45 and 151. PhD thesis. see also KIRSCH, Otakar. Vysokoškolská výuka gefasste Museologie“. Museum aktuell, November muzeologie v Brně v době normalizace a nástupu 2008, p. 7. 31 MAROEVIĆ, Ivo. Introduction to Museology – demokratického režimu. Museologica Brunensia, 28 HEESEN, Anke te. Theorien des Museums zur the European Approach. München: Verlag Dr. Chris- 2014, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 12–20. Einführung. Hamburg: Junius Verlag, 2012. tian Müller-Straten, 1998, pp. 130–132.
21 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
field should be accepted as genu- its fullest.36 This is also the opini to Stránský was that he “invented ine academic discipline. This may on Christian Müller-Straten has a system”, to use Müller-Straten’s not have been Jelínek’s intention expressed at different occasions.37 words.39 Such a system was helpful when he initiated a museum studies Müller-Straten even suggested that in developing a consistent study department at the Jan Evangelis- “the main teaching museologists in programme as became clear to us in ta Purkynĕ University (Brno) in Zagreb, Jyväskylä, Graz, Amsterdam the Netherlands in the early 1980s. 1963. It became however a life- as well as in Switzerland are based long endeavour of Stránský as the on the basic thoughts of Prof. Strán- The most elaborate introduction of department’s most important staff ský. And as his thoughts are in a pos- Stránský’s system outside Czecho- member.32 On 22–24 March 1965, itive sense timeless and including all slovakia/Czech & Slovak Republics, Stránský organised a conference in cultures of the world, his system of is Waidacher’s Handbuch (1993).40 which the characteristics of museol- Museology can also be used in Africa, As most of the ICOFOM members ogy as disciplines were discussed.33 even if this was doubted some years were not aware of Waidacher’s pub- During the 1960s, this confer- ago by Tomislav Sola.”38 I do think lication(s),41 they mostly depended ence was followed by two other Tomislav Šola was right, and I also on two English texts presented international conferences.34 The think Müller-Straten overestimated by Anna Gregorová (Bratislava),42 conferences positioned Stránský as the impact of Stránský’s ideas in the which they apparently seemed to important thinker in the field and four (five) teaching centres. These find more comprehensive and more constituted the concept of the muse- ideas did certainly influence teach- accessible than Stránský’s own ICO- ological “School of Brno”. ing at those centres, but despite FOM texts. Anyway, what appealed the alleged timelessness, this influ- to many “teaching museologists” As his international network grad- ence did not last into the present. as referred to above, was the con- ually expanded, Stránský gained However, it is not by coincidence cept of a specific human relation increased respect, also in the Soviet that Müller-Straten mentioned four 35 Union. Leading Soviet museolo- training centres. He could easily 39 MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. The contri- gist Awraam Razgon credited him have mentioned more. What my bution of Zbyněk Stránský to Museology and the contribution of the Brno Museology School. In as the person who has developed colleagues and myself attracted Muzealizace v soudobé společnosti a poslání muze- the theoretical foundation of mu- ologie/Musealization in contemporary society and role of museology. Anthology from symposium with 36 In HERBST, Wolfgang and Konstantin G. LE seology as academic discipline at foreign participation on the occasion of anniversary VYKIN (eds.). Museologie. Theoretische Grundlagen of the founder of the Brno museology school Zbyněk und Methodik der Arbeit in Geschichtsmuseen. Z. Stránský. Technical Museum in Brno, 8th–10th Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, November 2006. Prague: Asociace muzeí a galerií 1988, p. 21. This publication was a joint project České republiky, 2008, p. 31. of GDR and USSR museologists. The chapter on “Museologie als wissenschaftliche Disziplin” 40 Müller-Straten refers to Waidacher as “mere was written by Razgon. Stránský described how transporter of Stránský’s original thoughts” hav- he needed to meet Razgon in city parks in order ing received more credits than justified. MÜLLER- 32 About the early history of the department, not to be bugged. According to Stránský it was STRATEN, Christian. The contribution of Zbyněk see RUTAR, Václav. Vznik, vývoj a práce externí difficult for Razgon to be positive about his ideas, Stránský to Museology and the contribution of the katedry muzeologie v Brnĕ v letech 1963–1969. which seems to be in contradiction with the Brno Museology School. In Muzealizace v soudobé Museologica Brunensia, 2014, vol. 3, no. 5, way Razgon wrote about Stránský in HERBST, společnosti a poslání muzeologie/Musealization pp. 4–11 and KIRSCH, Otakar. Vysokoškolská Wolfgang and Konstantin G. LEVYKIN (eds.). Mu- in contemporary society and role of museology. výuka muzeologie v Brně v době normalizace seologie. Theoretische Grundlagen und Methodik der Anthology from symposium with foreign participa- a nástupu demokratického režimu. Museologica Arbeit in Geschichtsmuseen. Berlin: VEB Deutscher tion on the occasion of anniversary of the founder Brunensia, 2014, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 12–20. Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1988. of the Brno museology school Zbyněk Z. Stránský. Technical Museum in Brno, 8th–10th November 2006. 37 MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. The contri- 33 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. (ed.). Sborník materiálů Prague: Asociace muzeí a galerií České republiky, bution of Zbyněk Stránský to Museology and the prvého muzeologického sympozia. Brno: Moravské 2008, p. 30 and 34. In the German Wikipedia contribution of the Brno Museology School. In muzeum, 1966. page on “Museologie”, Müller-Straten (?) added Muzealizace v soudobé společnosti a poslání muze- that Waidacher’s Handbuch was published before 34 RUTAR, Václav. Vznik, vývoj a práce externí ologie/Musealization in contemporary society and Stránský’s concept of museology was fully katedry muzeologie v Brnĕ v letech 1963–1969. role of museology. Anthology from symposium with developed. Museologie. In Wikipedia. Die freie Museologica Brunensia, 2014, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 8. foreign participation on the occasion of anniversary Enzyklopädie [online]. [cit. 2016-09-27]. Available The conference that was held on 20-21 Octo- of the founder of the Brno museology school Zbyněk from www:
22 2016 /05 /02
towards reality as object of interest nored.47 Part of it is the implicit studies.52 In these contexts there is in museology. Paradoxically, this distinction between museum the- no felt need to adopt a rather rigid might also be the very reason why ory, museum studies and museol- system and methodology like the at many places “teaching museol- ogy. When Message and Witcomb one advocated by Stránský and Wai- ogists” later lost interest in Strán- speak of “the first phase of museum dacher. ský’s ideas. studies” in the 1990s48 they ignore the work of the ICOM Interna- As mentioned above, many “teach- Why did Stránský’s ideas not attract tional Committee for Museology ing museologists” were attracted wider attention? and the discussions on museology by the concept of a specific human When we focus on the non-German that preceded its establishment (in relation towards reality as object of speaking world, the first problem 1977).49 interest in museology, rather than seems to be a language problem the more tradition approach focus- connected with differences in epis- One of the key concerns of Strán- sing on the museum institution. temological thinking.43 Only a few ský, to prove that museology was It seems that the field of Museum texts of Stránský were published in a genuine academic discipline, Studies as it emerged from the English and they circulated mainly was of little interest in “western” New Museology, has given a new within a limited ICOFOM context.44 countries. Besides, new approach- dimension to the traditional muse- It is obvious that the present inter- es towards the understanding of um focussed museology, whereas national museological professional the development of scientific fields the related field of Critical Heritage discourse is mainly dominated by emerged.50 As far as I know, the Studies (also rooted in the British authors from Great Britain, United University of Graz is the only place New Museology) has absorbed any States and Australia. This is, for outside the Czech and Slovak Re- approach focussing on specific rela- example, clearly shown in the four publics where they still follow the tions toward reality as expressed in volume International Handbooks of Stránský/Waidacher system of mu- the concept of heritage.53 Museum Studies, published in 2015.45 seology.51 In most of the new muse- In the introduction to the first vol- ology/museum studies programmes As is show, for example, in Mark- ume (Museum Theory), the editors, at European universities the subject us Walz’s Handbuch Museum,54 the Kylie Message and Andrea Witcomb, matter field is claimed by other “Anglosaxon” Museum Studies and give 54 publications in their bibli- disciplines: art history, history, eth- Critical Heritage Studies approaches ography, all in English. Bourdieu, nography, and increasingly: cultural have hardly found their way into Deleuze, Foucault and Habermas the German museology discourse.55 are mentioned (not surprising in Nevertheless, the broad adoption this context), but they are the only 52 WALZ, Markus. On the current ascendancy continental-European authors re- of special museology in Germany. Museologica 46 Brunensia, 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 20–27; LUD- ferred to. This is symptomatic 47 MENSCH, Peter van. Needles in a haystack – WIG, Andreas and Markus WALZ. Museen als Some reflections from the Working Group on of the Handbooks as a whole: the Forschungsgegenstand anderer Wissenschaften. In Resources. COMCOL Newsletter, 2015, vol. 29, WALZ, Markus. Handbuch Museum. Geschichte – professional output from continen- pp. 19–21. tal-Europe, Latin-America, Africa Aufgaben – Perspektiven. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 48 MESSAGE, Kylie and Andrea WITCOMB. 2016, pp. 375–381. Markus Walz, however, does and Asia is almost completely ig- Introduction: museum theory. An expanded field. not mention cultural studies as one of the major In WITCOMB, Andrea and Kylie MESSAGE (eds.). academic fields claiming museums as a major Museum Theory. The International Handbooks of subject matter. The explanation might be his focus Museum Studies 1. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, on Germany. 2015, p. xxxvii. 53 MENSCH, Peter van. Museologie – Wissen- 49 In a similar way, Janet Marstine writes about schaft für Museen. In WALZ, Markus. Handbuch “new museum theory” without any reference to Museum. Geschichte – Aufgaben – Perspektiven. 43 MAIRESSE, François. Museology at a cross- museological work before the publication of Peter Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 2016, pp. 373–374. roads. Museologica Brunensia, 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, Vergo’s New Museology (1989), or discussions p. 5. 54 WALZ, Markus. Handbuch Museum. Geschich- that took place, and still take place, outside the te – Aufgaben – Perspektiven. Stuttgart: J. B. Metz- 44 Some ICOFOM texts were also published in British-American-Australian part of the world. ler, 2016. French. Texts produced in connection with the MARSTINE, Janet. Introduction. In MARSTINE, International Summer School of Museology were Janet (ed.). New museum theory and practice. Ox- 55 The recent (2015) appointment of Sharon Mac- also translated into French but were not distribu ford: Blackwell, 2008, pp. 1–36. donald, one of the exponents of the New Museol- ted outside the ISSOM context. ogy, as professor at the Institut für Europäische 50 MAIRESSE, François. Museology at a cross- Ethnologie (Humboldt Universität, Berlin) is an 45 MACDONALD, Sharon and Helen Rees LEAHY roads. Museologica Brunensia, 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, interesting development. At the one hand it gives (eds.). International Handbooks of Museum Studies. p. 6. New Museology a solid basis in Germany, at the Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015. 51 The university is decribed as “das letzte Refugi- other hand it is interesting that in the context of 46 MESSAGE, Kylie and Andrea WITCOMB. um und künftig hoffentlich eine erneute Pflanzstätte the Institute for European Ethnology she became Introduction: museum theory. An expanded field. der wissenschaftlichen Museologie im deutschen director of the Centre for Anthropological Re- In WITCOMB, Andrea and Kylie MESSAGE (eds.). Sprachraum“. BEIER, Hans-Jürgen and Volker search on Museums and Heritage, thus illustrating Museum Theory. The International Handbooks of SCHIMPFF. Editorial. Curiositas. Jahrbuch für the growing interest of other disciplines in the Museum Studies 1. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, Museologie und museale Quellenkunde, 2014–2015, subject matter field that is traditionally claimed 2015, pp. xxxv-lxiii. no. 14-15, p. 2. by museology.
23 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
of the concept of musealisation in François Mairesse has shown that itage as, for example, advocated by Germany is an expression of a sim- Stránský’s work on musealisation Laurajane Smith66 and Stránský’s ilar emerging interest as shown by can still be of value in a further developing concept of museality. the popularity of Critical Heritage development of the concept.60 Strán- Studies elsewhere. This has, howev- ský himself reflected on the work Müller-Straten may (partly) de right er, very little to do with Stránský’s of Lübbe, Baudrillard, Jeudy, and in his observation that a generation work. German authors usually refer others, which also shows that there of museologists is gradually disap- to a lecture of Hermann Lübbe from is a potential for further develop- pearing leaving “not enough prolific 1981.56 The first word of this lecture ment.61 The challenge is to make teachers in scientific Museology”.67 is “Musealisierung“ and through- a connection with the New Muse- The observations of Walz underline out the text many times the words ology, Museum Studies and Critical the problem.68 Nevertheless, I think museology and museum philosophy Heritage Studies discourses. Where- there is again a growing number are used. There are many referenc- as the term has become a familiar of young academics and museum es to contemporary publications component of the professional rhe workers that are interested in mu- in English and German, but not toric in Germany (and many other seums and musealisation, but they a single reference to museological countries), native speakers in Great do perhaps not define themselves texts published in the German Dem- Britain seem to feel uncomfortable as museologists. For me, this is not ocratic Republic or Czechoslovakia. with it. Anyway, the new interest in important. In hindsight it might be Neither does Lübbe refer to Jean documenting the present62 and the a pity that Stránský spend much of Baudrillard and Henri Pierre Jeudy. introduction of new concepts, such his energy to prove that museology As Eva Sturm has shown, these two as “musealisation lite”63 and “third is a science. This is not the main French authors used “muséification” space”64 could help to find new di- issue today. What still remains rel- already in the 1970s.57 Writing rections in the discussion. evant in contemporary society is about musealisation, Eva Sturm and a reflection on the specificity of the François Mairesse58 discuss Strán- In an earlier issue of Museologica relation of people with their envi- ský’s ideas but by doing so, they Brunensia, I have developed some ronment as expressed in the con- tend to overestimate his contribu- thoughts about the concept of mu- cept of heritage. tion to the international discourse.59 seality and its future.65 At the end It is interesting that in developing I was a bit ambivalent about the use ideas regarding establishing a mu- of the term. I still think it would REFERENCES: seum philosophy, Bernadette Col- be worthwhile to make an in-depth lenberg-Plotnikov goes back to the comparison of the concepts of her- AUER, Hermann (ed.). Museologie. Neue musealisation theory of Hermann Wege – Neue Ziele. Bericht über ein inter- 60 MAIRESSE, François. Muséalisation. In Lübbe, who is invited speaker at the DESVALLÉES, André and François MAIRESSE. nationales Symposium, veranstaltet von November 2016 conference men- Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie. Paris: den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der Bundes- tioned above. Armand Collin, 2011, pp. 251–269. republik Deutschland, Österreichs und 61 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Musealisierung und Para- der Schweiz vom 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 am digmenwechsel. Museum aktuell, Mai/Juni 2001, What elements from Stránský’s her- pp. 2802–2806; STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Muzea Bodensee. München: K. G. Sauer, 1989. itage could we use for future develop- lizace z hlediska noetiky a ontologie. In Muzea ISBN 978-3-598-10809-9. lizace v soudobé společnosti a poslání muzeologie/ ment? Musealization in contemporary society and role of BEIER, Hans-Jürgen and Volker SCHIMP- museology. Anthology from symposium with foreign FF. Editorial. Curiositas. Jahrbuch für participation on the occasion of anniversary of the founder of the Brno museology school Zbyněk Museologie und museale Quellenkunde, Z. Stránský. Technical Museum in Brno, 8th–10th 2014–2015, no. 14-15, pp. 1–2. 56 For example: LÜBBE, Hermann. Der Fortschritt November 2006. Prague: Asociace muzeí a galerií und das Museum. Über den Grund unseres Vergnü- České republiky, 2008, pp. 78–85. gens an historischen Gegenständen. The 1981 Bithell 66 SMITH, Laurajane. Uses of heritage. Abbing- Memorial Lecture. London: Institute of Germanic 62 ELPERS, Sophie and Anna PALM (eds.). Die don: Routledge, 2006. Studies, 1982. Musealisierung der Gegenwart. Von Grenzen und Chancen des Sammelns in kulturhistorischen Muse- 67 MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. The contri- 57 STURM, Eva. Konservierte Welt. Museum und en. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2014. bution of Zbyněk Stránský to Museology and the Musealisierung. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, contribution of the Brno Museology School. In 1991. 63 MENSCH, Peter van and Léontine MEI- Muzealizace v soudobé společnosti a poslání muze- JER-VAN MENSCH. New Trends in Museology II. 58 MAIRESSE, François. Muséalisation. In ologie/Musealization in contemporary society and Celje: Muzej novejše zgodovine, 2015, pp. 19–20. DESVALLÉES, André and François MAIRESSE. role of museology. Anthology from symposium with Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie. Paris: 64 MENSCH, Peter van. Museality at breakfast. foreign participation on the occasion of anniversary Armand Collin, 2011, pp. 251–269. The concept of museality in contemporary muse- of the founder of the Brno museology school Zbyněk ological discourse. Museologica Brunensia, 2015, Z. Stránský. Technical Museum in Brno, 8th–10th 59 Sturm refers to Stránský’s lecture on museality vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 14–19. November 2006. Prague: Asociace muzeí a galerií at the Reinwardt Academie in 1986 (see MENSCH, České republiky, 2008, p. 33. Peter van. Museality at breakfast. The concept 65 MENSCH, Peter van. Museality at breakfast. of museality in contemporary museological dis- The concept of museality in contemporary muse- 68 WALZ, Markus. On the current ascendancy course. Museologica Brunensia, 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, ological discourse. Museologica Brunensia, 2015, of special museology in Germany. Museologica pp. 14–19.). vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 14–19. Brunensia, 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 20–27.
24 2016 /05 /02
BIEDERMANN, Bernadette. Theoretische um, veranstaltet vom Deutschen Nation- München: K. G. Sauer, 1989, pp. 20–37. Modelle und aktuelles museales Ausstel- alkomitee des Internationalen Museums- ISBN 978-3-598-10809-9. lungswesen im Spiegel des Theorems der rates (ICOM) in Zusammenarbeit mit der LANG, Rolf (ed.). Museologie in der Tsche Musealität. Museologica Brunensia, 2015, Deutschen UNESCO-Kommission vom choslowakischen Sozialistischen Republik. vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 33–41. ISSN 1805-4722. 8. bis 13. März 1971 in München. Köln: Berlin, 1982. Schriftenreihe des Instituts BIEDERMANN, Bernadette and Marlies Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission, 1973. für Museumswesen 17. RAFFLER. Dem Museologen, Volks ELPERS, Sophie and Anna PALM (eds.). LÜBBE, Hermann. Der Fortschritt und das kundler, Jazzmusiker, Komponisten, Die Musealisierung der Gegenwart. Von Museum. Über den Grund unseres Vergnü- Arrangeur, Pädagogen, Museumskonsu- Grenzen und Chancen des Sammelns in gens an historischen Gegenständen. The lenten, Mentor, Philosophen, Polyhistor, kulturhistorischen Museen. Bielefeld: 1981 Bithell Memorial Lecture. London: Menschen und Freund Friedrich Wai- Transcript Verlag, 2014. ISBN 978-3- Institute of Germanic Studies, 1982. dacher zum 80. Geburtstag. Curiositas. -8394-2494-0. LUDWIG, Andreas and Markus WALZ. Mu- Jahrbuch für Museologie und museale FLÜGEL, Katharina. Einführung in die Mu- seen als Forschungsgegenstand anderer Quellenkunde, 2014–2015, no. 14-15, seologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Wissenschaften. In WALZ, Markus. Hand- pp. 3–14. Buchgesellschaft, 2005. ISBN 978-3-534- buch Museum. Geschichte – Aufgaben – BIEDERMANN, Bernadette, Marlies RAF- -73884-7. Perspektiven. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, FLER and Nikolaus REISINGER. Geleit- FLÜGEL, Katharina and Arnold VOGT (eds.). 2016, pp. 375–381. ISBN 978-3-476- wort. Curiositas. Jahrbuch für Museologie Museologie als Wissenschaft und Beruf in -02375-9. und museale Quellenkunde, 2012–2013, der modernen Welt. Leipziger Gespräche MACDONALD, Sharon and Helen Rees no. 12-13, pp.1–2. zur Museologie. Leipzig: Hochschule für LEAHY (eds.). International Handbooks Chamada para textos e comunicações para Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur, 1995. of Museum Studies. Chichester: Wiley- o III Ciclo de Debates Internacional Strán- Schriftenreihe zur Museologie 3. ISBN Blackwell, 2015. ISBN 978-1-4051- ský: uma ponte Brno-Brazil [online]. 978-3-929742-56-5. -9850-9. [cit. 2016-09-27]. Available from www: GUBARENKO, Maria. Czech-Russian (Czech- MAIRESSE, François. Muséalisation. In
25 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
on Resources. COMCOL Newsletter, 2015, SCHREINER, Klaus. Einführung in die Museo STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Noch eine „knapp vol. 29, pp. 19–21. logie – ein Beitrag zu den theoretischen gefasste Museologie“. Museum aktuell, MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a methodology Grundlagen der Museumsarbeit. Neu- November 2008, pp. 6–7. of museology. Zagreb: University of Za- brandenburg, 1982. STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. (ed.). Sborník materiálů greb, 1992. PhD thesis. SMITH, Laurajane. Uses of heritage. Abbing- prvého muzeologického sympozia. Brno: MENSCH, Peter van and Léontine MEI- don: Routledge, 2006. ISBN 978-0-415- Moravské muzeum, 1966. JER-VAN MENSCH. New Trends in Muse- -31830-3. STURM, Eva. Konservierte Welt. Museum und ology II. Celje: Muzej novejše zgodovine, STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Die Museologie als Musealisierung. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer 2015. ISBN 978-961-6339-39-1. selbständige Wissenschaft. In FLÜGEL, Verlag, 1991. ISBN 978-3-496-01078-4. MESSAGE, Kylie and Andrea WITCOMB. In- Katharina and Arnold VOGT (eds.). Mu- WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Allge- troduction: museum theory. An expanded seologie als Wissenschaft und Beruf in der meinen Museologie. Wien: Böhlau Verlag, field. In WITCOMB, Andrea and Kylie modernen Welt. Leipziger Gespräche zur 1993. ISBN 978-3-205-98445-0. MESSAGE (eds.). Museum Theory. The Museologie. Leipzig: Hochschule für Tech- WALZ, Markus. Handbuch Museum. International Handbooks of Museum Stud- nik, Wirtschaft und Kultur Leipzig, 1995, Geschichte – Aufgaben – Perspektiven. ies 1. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015, pp. 11–29. Schriftenreihe zur Museolo- Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 2016. ISBN 978- pp. xxxv-lxiii. ISBN 978-1-4051-9850-9. gie 3. ISBN 978-3-929742-56-5. -3-476-02375-9. MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. The contri- STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Die theoretischen WALZ, Markus. On the current ascendancy bution of Zbyněk Stránský to Museology Grundlagen der Museologie als Wissen- of special museology in Germany. Mu- and the contribution of the Brno Muse- schaft. In AUER, Hermann (ed.). Museolo seologica Brunensia, 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, ology School. In Muzealizace v soudobé gie. Neue Wege – Neue Ziele. Bericht über pp. 20–27. ISSN 1805-4722. společnosti a poslání muzeologie/Museal- ein internationales Symposium, veranstalt- ization in contemporary society and role et von den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der of museology. Anthology from symposium Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreichs with foreign participation on the occasion und der Schweiz von 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 PETER VAN MENSCH of anniversary of the founder of the Brno am Bodensee. München: K. G. Sauer, freelance museologist, Berlin (Germany) museology school Zbyněk Z. Stránský. 1989, pp. 38–47. ISBN 978-3-598-10809- and Loučná-Višňová (Czech Republic) Technical Museum in Brno, 8th–10th No- -9. [email protected] vember 2006. Prague: Asociace muzeí STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Ist Museologie eine a galerií České republiky, 2008, pp. 27– kommunistische Wissenschaft? Eine Ent- Peter van Mensch is currently free- 35. ISBN 978-80-86611-28-0. gegnung auf deutsche Einstellungen. Mu- lance museologist, and formerly professor of cultural heritage at MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. Wie in der seum aktuell, April 2001, pp. 2758–2761. the Reinwardt Academie (Amster- DDR Museologie gemacht wurde: Die STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Musealisierung und Par- dam) and professor of museology kommunistische Abrechnung mit Z. Z. adigmenwechsel. Museum aktuell, Mai/ at Vilnius University (Lithuania). Stránský. Museum aktuell, 2005, Juli/ Juni 2001, pp. 2802–2806. Being a Dutch citizen, he lives August, pp. 40–41. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Muzealizace z hle- partly in Berlin and partly in Museologie. In Wikipedia. Die freie Enzy diska noetiky a ontologie. In Muzealizace Loučná-Višňová (Czech Republic), klopädie [online]. [cit. 2016-09-27]. v soudobé společnosti a poslání muzeolo- reflecting his lifetime ambition to Available from www:
26 2016 /05 /02
STUDIE/ARTICLES
WHAT IS ZBYNĚK Z. STRÁNSKÝ’S “INFLUENCE”
ON MUSEOLOGY? DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-3
FRANÇOIS MAIRESSE
ABSTRACT/ABSTRAKT: muzeologie – Stránský – ICOFOM – medium-term influence of Stránský systém muzeologie – metamuzeologie on his colleagues and on the fol- This article seeks to examine the lowing two generations. I must in question of the short- and medi- this context position myself, having um-term influence of Stránský on The etymology of the word “influ- followed Stránský’s courses in Brno his museological colleagues and on ence” refers to the medieval Latin: during an ISSOM session and hav- the following two generations, both influentia or the “action assigned to ing interacted with him as a (very in Brno and on the International the stars on human destiny.”1 If we young) ICOFOM colleague during Committee for Museology (ICO- stick to that principle, the influence the last years of his presence within FOM), but also on a more general of Z. Z. Stránský is particularly the committee, at a time (the sec- level. After giving some elements limited. In the thirteenth century, ond half of the 1990s) when he was of Stránský’s conceptions of mu- however, the term takes on a more preparing to gradually withdraw seology, this paper attempts to human meaning, “slow and contin from the international sphere. I am analyze his influence on posterity, uous action exercised by a person or aware of the partly subjective per- especially on an international level. a thing on another person or thing.”2 spective that this contribution could The article also raises the question It is for this reason that we can propose, which would necessarily of the notion of “influence”, as the question the influence of Stránský differ from that of someone who term might be analyzed from differ- on museology or, more fairly, on his had not met him. ent perspectives. colleagues.3 A major influence in the ICOFOM Jakým způsobem Zbyněk Most of Stránský’s career advanced Z. Stránský „ovlivnil“ muzeologii? in a very different context from to- Between 1980 and 1997, Stránský day. He had known war and it was published over thirty articles and Tento článek si klade za cíl pro- mainly during the Cold War that comments in Museological Working zkoumat, jaký vliv měl Stránský he developed his career. With the Papers and the ICOFOM Study Series z krátkodobého a střednědobého fall of the Berlin Wall, in his early published by ICOFOM, making him hlediska na své současníky v oboru sixties, he still had many years of one of the most regular and prolific muzeologie a na příští dvě gene- scientific production before him, authors of the committee. His close race muzeologů v Brně a na půdě having launched the Internatio involvement within the committee Mezinárodního výboru pro muzea nal Summer School of Museology (founded and firstly chaired by Jan (ICOFOM), ale také na obecnější (ISSOM) in 1987. Internationally, Jelínek) from its inception, as well úrovni. Text se zabývá některými he is primarily considered as an as the quality of his contributions, prvky Stránského koncepce muze- “Eastern” thinker, a representative render him a de facto key figure ologie a pokouší se analyzovat jeho of a certain vision of the museum of the founding generation of ICO- vliv na příští generace, zejména which proved to be very influential FOM. As it has already been noted,4 v mezinárodním kontextu. Článek during the Cold War period, but for many Western scientists, the také pojednává o rozdílných názo- which mostly disappeared after the world of museology beyond the Iron rech na samotný pojem „vliv“, jenž 1990s. This article seeks to exam- Curtain was relatively unknown, může být vnímán z různých úhlů ine the question of the short- and and it was a considerable surprise pohledu. for Western museologists to enter
1 Trésor de la langue française informatisé [online]. into a direct relationship with such KEYWORDS/KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA: [cit. 2016-08-30]. Available from www:
27 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
particular “Eastern”5 views, espe- logy.7 Neustupný was probably the fessionals of museums from around cially the more theoretical aspects. first to develop, at an international the world. level, specific views on museums, It would be incorrect to see Strán- in the 1950s, and his book Museum The position of Stránský within ský as the only representative of and research, published in 1968,8 in- ICOFOM, in this perspective, is this specific stream. In the two spired the father of French museolo- highly significant until the early issues of Museological Working Pa gy and permanent advisor of ICOM, 2000s. Although he never ran for pers (MuWoP, 1/1980), of the twen- Georges Henri Rivière. Josef Beneš, president, his place within the ty-six authors, nine may be labeled in Prague, was also a prominent committee was central, not only of as coming from the Eastern Bloc figure in the teaching of museology course due to the important number (Anna Gregorová, Ilse Jahn, Jiří at that time. But above all, we could of his articles and contributions, Neustupný, Jurij Pisculin, Awraam not understand the importance of but especially for their considerable Razgon, Klaus Schreiner, Tibor Brno on the museum map without influence on other colleagues. This Sekelj, Zbyněk Stránský and Jerzy considering the role of Jelínek in its includes the very definition of mu- Świecimski) but three were Czecho international recognition. seology, a major topic discussed by slovak (Neustupný from Prague, the Committee10 to which Stránský’s Stránský from Brno and Gregorová The fact remains that Stránský’s views contributed decisively (the from Bratislava). Schreiner, a native efforts significantly intensified the role of Anna Gregorová should also of the German Democratic Republic relations between Brno and mu- be pointed out, with her definition (GDR) and Avraam Razgon, from seology, especially because of the of museology being given in the the Soviet Union, could also be longevity of his interventions. Neu- first MuWoP). Until then, the most considered as major figures of mu- stupný, who was among the found- common definition of museology seology in the Eastern countries, ing fathers of ICOFOM, was born in was a “museum science”, originally and their thoughts sometimes differ 1905 and belonged to the previous conceived by Rivière and widely widely from those of Stránský. It is generation, while Jelínek (born shared within the ICOM. Even the worth noticing the place occupied in 1926) left ICOFOM very early. American George Ellis Burcaw, in by Czechoslovakia on the museum There would not be many inter- his Introduction of Museum Work, map during this period. If we add ventions by Avram Razgon (maybe quotes the definition while attribu to the previously quoted authors the the most outstanding museologist ting it to the ICOM: major role played by Jan Jelínek in the USSR at that time, who died (Director of the Moravian Museum, in 1989) in ICOFOM; while Klaus “Museology is museum science. It has founder of the Anthropos museum Schreiner (from the GDR) died in to do with the study of the history in Brno, President of ICOM from 1990. However, Stránský’s position, and background of museums, their 1971 to 1977, then President of ICO- besides his writing and academic role in the society, specific systems FOM from 1977 to 1981) and the activities in Brno, was hardly weak- of research, conservation, education major role played by Vinoš Sofka ened during the years following the and organization, relationship with (active in Brno until 1968, then res- Velvet Revolution, maybe due to the the physical environment, and the ident in Stockholm, and President opening of the Brno International classification of different kinds of of ICOFOM from 1981 to 1989),6 it Summer School of Museology museums. In brief, museology is the would be appropriate to recognize (ISSOM) in 1987, which was sup- branch of knowledge concerned with the unique role played at that time ported by UNESCO and would host, the study of the purposes and organ by that country in world museo for the next ten years,9 young pro- ization of museums. Museography is the body of techniques related to mu seology. It covers methods and prac 7 It is known that museum courses were already tices in the operation of museums, in being run in Brno in the 1920s, see JAGOŠOVÁ, 11 Lucie and Lenka MRÁZOVÁ. Tradition of museum all their various aspects.” pedagogy in the Czech Republic and the role of Brno museology on its development. Museologica 5 As Nada Guzin remarked, the idea of an “East- Brunensia, 2015, vol. 7, no. 4/2, pp. 56–64. The idea that museology would not ern museology” should be reconsidered, as many differences existed between communist countries 8 NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Museum and Research. refer to the museum but to “a hu at that moment. GUZIN LUKIC, Nada. La muséol- Prague: National Museum, 1968; see RIVIÈRE, ogie de l’Est: la construction d’une discipline Georges Henri. La muséologie selon Georges Henri 10 See MAIRESSE, François and André DES- scientifique et la circulation transnationale des Rivière. Paris: Dunod, 1989, p. 180 sq. VALLÉES. Muséologie. In MAIRESSE, François and idées en muséologie. ICOFOM Study Series, 2015, André DESVALLÉES (eds.). Dictionnaire encyclo 9 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Ten years of the International vol. 43a, pp. 111–125. pédique de muséologie. Paris: Armand Colin, 2011, Summer School of Museology. In STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. pp. 343–384. 6 See MENSCH, Peter van. Some impressions con- (ed.). Museology for Tomorrow’s World: proceedings cerning Vinoš Sofka (1929–2016): Lawyer, Brick- of the international symposium held at Masaryk 11 BURCAW, George Ellis. Introduction to Museum layer, Administrator, and Museologist. Museologica University, Brno, Oct 9–11, 1996. Munich: Verlag Work. Nashville: American Association for State and Brunensia, 2016, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 74–76. Müller-Straten, 1997, pp. 143–151. Local History, 1975, pp. 12–13.
28 2016 /05 /02
man specific relationship to reality”12 realm of practice, as they were too The (1) object of knowledge of mu- inspired most of the members of complex, but only through museum seology is probably Stránský’s most the committee. “This is a kind of theory. The Brno scholar would significant contribution. As Bernard Copernican revolution in which the devote most of his career to the Deloche evokes above, it may in- object of museology is reduced to this identification and promotion of the deed be considered as a Copernican specific relationship, and in which the necessary conditions to establish reversal: it was not museology that museum would be a particular rea museology as a science. The nec- was developed from the museum, lization,”13 writes Bernard Deloche. essary conditions for museology to but the opposite. Stránský saw the Peter van Mensch, with his thesis become scientific in nature were object of museological knowledge as written in 1992, has probably of- described by Stránský as: it must the study of a specific relationship fered the most comprehensive up- have (1) a specific object of know between man and reality, which date on the place of Stránský in mu- ledge, (2) a method of its own, (3) seems to be a much more stable seology: the number of quotations a specific scientific language and (4) object of research than the museum given, as well as the position of a theoretical system.17 This propo- itself, as this institution is fairly Stránský concerning most key mu- sition evolved little over the years, recent in the history of mankind seological concepts, demonstrates even with the major changes that (no more than three centuries for the continued importance of the completely modified the political the modern museum). This means, Brno master within the museolog- landscape: Stránský maintained moreover, that older forms existed ical sphere.14 It is not the purpose almost the same structure (object, before the museum, such as cabi- of this article to present a detailed methods, language and system) in nets of curiosities, and that further study of the museological terms Museology, introduction to the study, forms would come into existence in conceived by Stránský. However, published in 1995.18 The existence the future: for example, communi- it seems necessary to present some of museology as a science therefore cation science exists and not mobile key elements if we want to try to seemed possible, provided that phone science (or a so-called mo- evaluate his influence. we could, on the one hand, meet bilephonology). Of course, history, a number of formal requirements sociology or other disciplines can Elements of Zbyněk Stránský’s related to its object and its method, contribute to the knowledge of this museological conceptions and on the other hand, demonstrate specific relationship, but the spec- them to be strictly useful. Stránský ificity of the topic should be reco The position of Zbyněk Stránský was сertainly not the only one to gnized, as well as early attempts on museology is well known: from develop these principles, and in to theorize it, and several can be a scientific point of view, museology fact, one of the major ICOFOM ob- found in ancient literature dating (the term first appeared in the nine- jectives was to establish museology back to Quiccheberg (the Inscrip teenth century) is not and cannot as a discipline within the university tiones vel tituli theatri, 1565). be considered as a science within framework. For instance, we may the current university system. “The stress, in particular, the extremely The question of language and overall standard that museum theory consistent research conducted by vocabulary (3) for a long time at- has reached is not very satisfactory Klaus Schreiner, Peter van Mensch tracted Stránský’s attention. He col- from the metatheoretical viewpoint, and Ivo Maroević, which would lead laborated on the Dictionnarium mu i. e. it is not quite up to the present to the drafting of comprehensive seologicum project, by coordinating criteria put on scientific theory.”15 For museological treaties.19 the Czech side,20 but he was above him, the core problems faced by all acknowledged for his decisive museums (e. g. the museum crisis of development of concepts such as 197116) could not be solved in the musealization, musealia or museali 21 17 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Museology as a science ty. The invention of new concepts 12 GREGOROVÁ, Anna. La muséologie, science (a thesis). Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, (that may define the role of the ou seulement travail pratique du musée? MuWoP/ pp. 33–40. DoTraM, 1980, no. 1, pp. 19–21. 18 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Muséologie Introduction 13 DELOCHE, Bernard. Pour une muséologie aux études: destinée aux étudiants de l’Ecole 20 ÉRI, István and Végh BÉLA. Dictionarium contractuelle. ICOFOM Study Series, 2015, vol. Internationale d’Été de Muséologie – EIEM. Brno: museologicum/Dictionary of museology. Budapest: 43a, p. 84. Université Masaryk, 1995. Hungarian Esperanto Association, 1986. 14 MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a Methodology of 19 See MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a Methodo 21 For more about these two terms, see the Dic Museology. Zagreb: University of Zagreb, Faculty logy of Museology. Zagreb: University of Zagreb, tionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie, MAIRESSE, of Philosophy, 1992. Doctor’s Thesis. Faculty of Philosophy, 1992. Doctor’s Thesis and François and André DESVALLÉES. Muséologie. SCHREINER, Klaus. Einführung in die Museologie – In MAIRESSE, François and André DESVALLÉES 15 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. La muséologie – science ou ein Beitrag zu den theoretischen Grundlagen der (eds.). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie. seulement travail pratique du musée? MuWoP/ Museumsarbeit, 2 vol. Neubrandenbourg: [s. n.], Paris: Armand Colin, 2011, pp. 343–384 and DoTraM, 1980, no. 1, p. 44. 1982; MAROEVIĆ, Ivo. Introduction to Museology – MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a Methodology of 16 See for instance O´DOHERTY, Brian (ed.). Muse- the European Approach. Munich: Verlag Christian Museology. Zagreb: University of Zagreb, Faculty ums in Crisis. New York: Braziller, 1972. Müller-Straten, 1998. of Philosophy, 1992. Doctor’s Thesis.
29 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
philosopher, as Deleuze proposes22) theoretical museology and applied made by Stránský and the ICOFOM proves not to be a pleasant pastime, museology; in this work, theoretical in general at that time, they did not but a necessity, in order to work museology is seen as comprising the directly lead to the introduction of on a more accurate level. This can theories of selection, thesauration methods applicable to the study of be revealed in an article Stránský and presentation. Applied muse- museums and collections. On the devoted to the concept of heritage:23 ology includes management, mar- contrary, during Stránský’s early the specific actions related to the keting, architecture, conservation, career (circa 1960s), several new museum registration process, i.e. information, expography, public approaches toward visitors were al- the operations of transmission from relations and promotion. ready being considered28 which pro- one generation to another, require duced original and practical results the use of a specific term to differ- On the contrary, the question of and the constitution of a new field entiate them from commonly used, method (2) was not really addressed of research (visitor studies). The vague terms. For example, “herit- by Stránský (however it appears in same could be said for conservation age” is taken from juridical vocab- the bulk of van Mensch’s PhD dis- studies and, during the 1980s, the ulary and used for family transmis- sertation, Towards a Methodology history of museums and collections. sions of material goods, biological of Museology, although the Dutch characteristics and values. We can museologist only tried to build the Stránský in posterity accept or refuse a heritage, but method theoretically). If the speci- Even if the master is quoted ex- our role is not very active. In this ficity of museology’s research object tensively in Brno, the Czech Re- context, the term “heritage” does can be considered as established, public, or within the ICOFOM, his not refer to the real active process this discipline (or theoretical field, reputation is far from being glob- initiated by somebody (or society) if not a science) is thus based on al, and his vision of the museum to integrate the object received into methods used by other scientific does not dominate today’s world a specific relationship with reality. disciplines such as history or art of museums. As an indication, the history (history of the museum and number of references relating to The system of museology (4) has collections), sociology or psychology him on Google scholar or Google also been deepened by Stránský, (public studies and visitor studies) books is much smaller than other who sought throughout his career or physics and chemistry (the ana eminent personalities like Geor to improve its logic, including the lysis of objects). As such, collection ges Henri Rivière, Stephen Weil evolution of museum practices in study, appears to be left totally to or Susan Pearce.29 If we find some order to be in accordance with the reference sciences (anthropology, (rare) Stránský references in gen- western market-driven economy archeology, and art history, based eral French textbooks,30 we find no (Stránský spoke about management on collections26). The purpose of trace of him in the most common and marketing). From the outset, Stránský’s publications, like most however, this type of museological ICOFOM members’ contributions, system was already in place, par- was driven by a philosophical (in its tially outlined by Neustupný, who broad sense) approach, or an episte- distinguished general museology mological view of museology. Most 24 28 SCHIELE, Bernard. Les études de visiteurs. from special museology. The “sys- of Stránský’s best articles could be La formation, l’évolution et les défis actuels tem of museology” continued by considered as meta-museology, or du champ. In DAIGNAULT, Lucie and Bernard SCHIELE. Les musées et leurs publics, savoirs et Stránský, was already well estab- a certain discourse on museolo- enjeux. Québec: Presses universitaires de Québec, 25 lished in the 1970s, but it was re- gy, much more than the results of 2014, pp. 7–69. 27 fined over the years until the latest a museological approach. Obvi- 29 When entering the name and surname of the version of Museology: Introduction ously the development of a specific author, associated with “museum”, on Google Scholar (which gathers worldwide academic ar- to studies (1995) which separates method may allow for some original ticles and citations) one obtains the following re- results that could be discussed and sult: Stránský: 308; Rivière: 18 000; Weil: 21 200; and Pearce: 21 600. When searching for the name 22 DELEUZE, Gilles and Felix GUATTARI. Qu’est- adopted or abandoned. At the risk and surname of the author on Google books, one ce que la philosophie? Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, of oversimplification, we could say finds the following result: Stránský: 1 060; Rivi 1991. ère: 111 000; Pearce: 114 000; and Weil: 198 000. that if major progress had been Results collected on August 20, 2016. These 23 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Cultural Heritage: a Big results must be considered as approximate, as Word, a Vague Term. PACT, 1997, pp. 635–638. 26 DAVALLON, Jean. Musée et muséologie. Intro- the search engine has its own specificity, and the 24 NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Museum and Research. duction. In Musées et recherche, Actes du colloque results are just based on digitalized literature. Prague: National Museum, 1968. de Paris, 29 and 30 November and 1 December, 30 GOB, André and Noémie DROUGUET. La mu 25 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Brno: Education in Muse 1993. Dijon: OCIM, 1995, pp. 245–256. séologie. Histoire, développements, enjeux actuels. ology. Brno: Purkyně University and Moravian 27 Even though we know that Stránský also 4th ed. Paris: Armand Colin, 2014; POULOT, Museum, 1974 and STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Museology worked in museums and for museums, for instance Dominique. Musée et muséologie. Paris: La décou- as a science (a thesis). Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, collaborating on the design of the Exhibition of verte, 2005; both of which cite or briefly discuss no. 15, pp. 33–40. the Battle of Austerlitz (Slavkov), near Brno. the author.
30 2016 /05 /02
Anglo-Saxon textbooks.31 From the There can be no doubt that in Hud- to quote Stránský as a reference second MuWoP, one of the most son’s eyes, Stránský, if not the pope, regarding the foundations of muse- prominent personalities of Ameri- held a very high position in the ology. Ivo Maroević, who belonged can museology at that time, George “cult of museology”. If there were to the same generation (he super- Ellis Burcaw, conveyed his difficul- other equally strong reactions, most vised van Mensch’s PhD in Zagreb), ties in adopting the views expressed Anglo-Saxons reacted with indi could also be considered as one of by most Eastern colleagues – above fference (above all because most of the propagators of Stránský’s ide- all those of Brno and Stránský, his writings were not published in as, although he himself proved to whom he quoted extensively – as English), showing as a result that conceive numerous very original most American museum workers such museological ideas were far and important ideas on museology.35 were not dealing with museology: from being internationally wide- The same is true for many ICO- “Eastern museology, as exemplified in spread. Even in the ICOFOM, with FOM members who arrived in the Brno is founded more on philosophy notable exceptions, a kind of gen- mid-1980s and can be considered than on pragmatism. In my opinion, eral indifference started to spread as being part of the second ICO- the Western approach is likely to be across the new generations, who FOM generation: Martin Schaerer more productive in the short run, were focusing on other topics, and (Switzerland, the ICOFOM Presi- but for efficiency and worth in the most contributors of the ICOFOM dent from 1993 to 1998), Bernard long run, the Eastern approach is Study Series of recent years do not Deloche (France), Tereza Scheiner needed.”32 Forty years later, we still seem to have followed (and quoted) (Brazil, President from 1998 to seem to live in the short run evoked Stránský’s ideas at all. If the debates 2001), Nelly Decarolis (Argentina, by Burcaw. In 1997, for the tenth on the future of museology as sci- President from 2007 to 2010) and anniversary of the ISSOM, Kenneth ence are indeed not really on the Norma Rusconi (Argentina). All of Hudson, invited by Stránský, strong- agenda34 anymore and if the influ- these people would largely continue ly criticized anyone who pretended ence of “Eastern” museology has to refer to (and expand on) Strán- to develop museology as a scientific largely decreased since the fall of ský’s ideas. It is worth mentioning discipline: the Berlin Wall, it would be wrong the joint collaboration of Scheiner to underestimate the influence of and Decarolis within the ICOFOM “It goes without saying, I should have Stránský, at least for some research- LAM subcommittee (bringing to- thought, that one cannot have muse ers. gether museum professionals from ologists without a subject called mu Latin American countries) that was seology or financial advisers without It is interesting to note the evolu- created in 1992. Strong supporters a financial system, and second, that tion of Stránský’s references with- of Stránský’s ideas, both Scheiner in order to defend their position, the in the ICOFOM itself. One might and Decarolis spread his thinking practitioners must be able to justify consider, in this regard, four gen- through this very important Latin the subject, at least to themselves. But erational members’ movements. American network. The importance it is important to realize that the peo The first generation is related to its attributed by Scheiner to Stránský ple who decide, for whatever reasons, founders (1977 to 1985), the second is worth noting. Thanks to her ac- to be officially known as museologists developed in the 1980s (1985 to ademic position within one of the are essentially the priests and in one 1993 until the end of the presidency very first universities to establish or two instances the bishops and car of van Mensch), its members having museum studies courses (Univer- dinals of the cult of museology.”33 strong relations with the master of sity of Rio de Janeiro, in 1932), Brno. The third generation could her teaching and writings clearly 31 For example, AMBROSE, Timothy and Crispin be considered to run from 1993 to influenced several generations of PAINE. Museum Basics. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2012; CARBONELL, Bettina Messias. Museum 2007 (up to the presidency of Hilde- Brazilian students, and contributed Studies. An Anthology of Contexts. Oxford: Wiley gard Vieregg), and only some of its to the spreading of Stránský’s ideas Blackwell, 2012; MACDONALD, Sharon (ed.). A Companion to Museum Studies. Oxford: Wiley members got to know Stránský; the across the Latin American conti- Blackwell, 2011; MESSAGE, Kylie and Andrea fourth would run from 2007 to the WITCOMB (vol. eds). Museum Theory. An Expand present date. Of course, very few 35 MAROEVIĆ, Ivo. Introduction to Museology – ed Field. MACDONALD, Sharon and Helen REES the European Approach. Munich: Verlag Christian LEAHY (eds.). The International Handbooks of members of the first generation of Müller-Straten, 1998. Besides these aforemen- Museum Studies. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2015, the ICOFOM are still active today, tioned members, some other Czechs should be pp. xxxv–lxiii. such as André Desvallées and lat- quoted, such as Beneš or Šuleř. One should also 32 BURCAW, George Ellis. Comments on MuWop remember Mathilde Bellaigue, who was very much no 1. MuWop/Do Tram, 1981, no. 2, pp. 85–86. er Peter van Mensch (who arrived dedicated to the Committee until she retired, in in the early 1980s), and continue 1996. Of course, Suzan Nash, Vinoš Sofka’s wife, 33 HUDSON, Kenneth. Who are the ‘museolo still continues to be very active in the Commit- gists’ and for whose benefit do they exist? In tee too. It is among this first generation that one STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. (ed.). Museology for Tomorrow’s 34 DELOCHE, Bernard. Pour une muséologie con- should count the first presidents of the ICOFOM, World: proceedings of the international symposium tractuelle. ICOFOM Study Series, 2015, vol. 43a, Jelínek, Sofka and van Mensch. Desvallées and held at Masaryk University, Brno, Oct 9–11, 1996. p. 84. Maroević were also elected vice-presidents. München: Müller-Straten, 1997, p. 105.
31 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
nent. Among the students trained contact with them. With a few ex- of Stránský’s work – i. e. the recog- by Scheiner were Bruno Brulon ceptions (particularly among Brazi nition of museology as a scientific Soares (the current Vice President lian members), the following discipline – one can only note that of the ICOFOM), Luciana Menezes ICOFOM generations progressively this model still does not dominate de Carvalho and Bernardo Anaildo distanced themselves from Strán- the international scene. Museolo Baraçal (author of a master’s thesis ský’s influence, most of them hav- gy (but also museum studies) is on Stránský).36 The organization of ing never really been confronted certainly very widespread in the a symposium in October 2015 at with Europe’s Berlin Wall and the academic world and the literature UNIRIO, for the 50th anniversary of idea of an “Eastern” museology. (including the number of academic Stránský first article on the subject journals) continues to grow. But in of museology, reflects the impor- Apart from the ICOFOM’s publi- actuality, it is not the idea of a dis- tance given to the author by this cations, Stránský’s writings were cipline but rather a field of research university. mainly distributed through two and practices, as developed in the other channels. Firstly, within the Anglo-Saxon logic (e. g. Leicester in If some members directly related to Czech Republic and especially Brno, the UK) that dominates. the second generation of ICOFOM some efforts were made to contin- have been particularly receptive ue to disseminate his papers and The term “influence”, however to the ideas of Stránský, we cannot books, even his very last contribu- (defined as “slow and continu- generalize this for all of its mem- tions, such as Archeologie a muzeo ous action exercised by a person bers. For instance, exceptions in- logie (2005),38 while an inventory or a thing on another person or clude Lynn Maranda and Hildegard of all his publications was under- thing”) is much broader than what Vieregg (President from 2001 to taken by Jan Dolák, at that point is reflected through the academic 2007), who developed different in- the holder of the UNESCO Chair literature. Stránský’s influence can terests more directly related to their of museology and world heritage also be analyzed on two other le fields of specialization (anthropolo- in Brno, which led to the publica- vels: 1) at the specific universities gy and museum history respective- tion of his complete bibliography.39 where his teachings on transmission ly). Thus, a double movement could If Stránský is sometimes cited in have been a focus of study; and 2) be described, because in the first France, as previously mentioned, through his research activities: his place there had been the dynamic it is primarily in German-speaking presence at symposia and national approach of Vinoš Sofka, the second countries that his thought continues or international conferences. From president (1981 to 1989) and strong to be studied and valued. Katharina 1964 onwards, Stránský met hun- leader of the committee for more Flügel and Friedrich Waidacher, dreds of students, mainly in Brno. than a decade, who upturned the who edited influential textbooks on Only some of them became museum listing, analysis and synthesis of the museology, quote him extensively.40 curators, but most of them benefi various strains of museum theory Markus Walz, who just published ted from his particular thought and throughout the world (the results an important reference on museums way of teaching. I cannot represent were published in the ICOFOM and museology, is also among the this topic regarding the Czechoslo- Study Series). This attempt proved, authors of the new generation who vakian or Czech university system, after some years, to deviate from its still refer to him.41 as I did not benefit from his teach- initial objective.37 Moreover, several ings in this context. My (subjective) great personalities like van Mensch What does “influence” mean? testimony focuses instead on his or Stránský gradually left the com- contribution to the ISSOM, which mittee, no longer allowing younger As it was earlier pointed out, from I attended in 1995 (I followed generations to learn directly from a strictly museological point of course A). From 1987 ISSOM’s an- view, if we stick to the main tenet nual sessions were given to small 36 BARAÇAL, Anaildo Bernardo. O objeto da mu groups of less than twenty students. seologia: a via conceitual aberta por Zbynek Zbyslav 38 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Archeologie a muzeologie. The teaching course was run over Stransky. Dissertação de Mestrado [online]. Rio de Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2005. Janeiro: Unirio/MAST, 2008 (consultation August a full month and was completed 39 DOLÁK, Jan and Jana VAVŘÍKOVÁ. Muzeolog 2016) [cit. 2016-08-30]. Available from www: Z. Z. Stránský. Život a dílo. Brno: Masarykova by study tours. The link between
32 2016 /05 /02
Mexico, Portugal, Romania, etc. seduced by the rigorous reasoning out the academic career through The course itself was not taught by of several ICOFOM members (in- readings and references (already Stránský alone, although he over- cluding Deloche, Desvallées and mentioned in this article) but above saw the most theoretical part of van Mensch), I had already read all through meetings. This happens it. Many other Czech and foreign the name of Stránský and probably of course during communications specialists gave lessons, such as (in some articles written by him, but but principally through informal 1995), Mathilde Bellaigue, Bernard I had no clear idea of his entire discussions. Stránský actively par- Deloche, Michel van Praët and, of vision of museology. The constant ticipated throughout his career in course, Vinoš Sofka. It would be presence of the master of Brno, the such meetings, organizing many wrong to pretend that all students opportunity to ask all the ques- events in Brno. Within the ICOFOM passionately followed Stránský’s tions I wanted, the provision of his whose symposium traditionally lessons and would perfectly remem- museological articles and referen privileged formal and informal dis- ber his teachings and concepts. For ces – and of course their reading – cussions, he had acquired the status many international students, the ap- supplemented by discussion among of a kind of “guru” in the eyes of proach of the master of Brno, based students (some are still friends some of his main admirers. If most on ex cathedra education, greatly I continue to meet) constituted of us remember his contribution to contrasted with the more interac- a decisive moment in the structur- the elaboration of such concepts as tive methods used in their basic ing of my thoughts on museology, musealization, museality, musealia teachings. Few students seemed and my willingness to integrate or metamuseology, eventually, the familiar with the writings of Strán- into the ICOFOM and contribute to most significant of Stránský qual- ský, which were hardly accessible its work. This kind of testimony is ities might be his insatiable desire outside the circles of the ICOFOM, not unique. The ISSOM also played to promote museology and favor and some of his speeches sometimes a leading role in the creation of the the recognition it deserves on the appeared like a kind of shamanis- Baltic Museology School (BMS), scientific scene. All of his work is tic experience enhanced by secret created in 2004 and still very active somehow supported by this passion formulas. Yet most of the people today. The BMS brings together the which was pursued very consist- present were convinced that some- efforts of the three Baltic countries ently, throughout his life, even in thing important was happening. (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) in his last writings featured in Museo The fact remains that the continued the development of museology.42 logica Brunensia. presence of Stránský throughout the Led by Jānis Garjāns and assisted course and during trips, always at by Anita Jirgensone, the Baltic Mu- Conclusion hand to answer questions, as well seology School organizes a confe as the documents he referred to rence each summer, over the course The notion of influence affects all during the course (in particular the of one full week in one of the three of us. We did not grow alone but Introduction to museology) and the Baltic countries, inviting one or two with the help of other people (or documentation he provided (e. g. international researchers to share in opposition to them). This begins MuWoP or van Mensch’s PhD disser- their knowledge. It is worth men- within the family circle and goes tation, which was barely available tioning that the school management on into school or college years, but at the time) constituted quite a re- team and key leading figures of the it also continues throughout our markable context for absorbing his Society of Promotion of Museolo- lives through friends, circles of specific logic, during a full intensive gy in the Baltics (including Agrita colleagues, and networks to which month, seven days a week, and 24 Ozola) have participated in several we belong, as much as through our hours a day with the same museo- ISSOM sessions, and many guest personal readings. The power of the logical colleagues. speakers invited by the BMS were influence of a scientist develops in or have been close to the ICOFOM. two ways: through his writings and It is impossible to define the influ- through direct or indirect personal ence that this experience had on all If the teaching period is one of contact. It goes without saying that of the ISSOM students; for some, the most important moments in one influences the other: we want this episode was probably part of terms of academic influence (even to know and have discussions with a relatively insignificant period of though students do not seem to someone whose writings interest their intellectual maturation. I can, realize it!), it goes without saying us, and often we want to quote however, at least certify its impor- that this process continues through- someone we have met and whose tance for the development of my influence seems preponderant (or own thoughts. Having studied mu- 42 See the internet site of BMS: Baltic Museology because we appreciate him). seology in Brussels and Amsterdam School [online]. Society of Promotion of Museolo- gy in the Baltics, 2016 [cit. 2016-08-30]. Available (where I met Peter van Mensch), from www:
33 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
It is difficult to know the real in- generation to generation and con- REFERENCES: fluence of somebody, as everything stantly recreated, requires the help cannot be measured; this of course of other people, with a process that AMBROSE, Timothy and Crispin PAINE. Mu holds true within the academ- does not differ from the traditional seum Basics. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, ic community. The conventional process of master-disciple transmis- 2012. ISBN 978-0-415-61933-2. “scientific” method for gauging the sion. This kind of process appears to Baltic Museology School [online]. Society of influence of a scientist is by meas- be more fragile, even though some Promotion of Museology in the Baltics, uring citations (bibliometrics or sci- transmission processes (especially 2016 [cit. 2016-08-30]. Available from entometrics). In a way, the number in spiritual traditions) can last do www:
34 2016 /05 /02
GOB, André and Noémie DROUGUET. La NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Museum and Research. VANDEVIVERE, Ignace. Conversation avec muséologie. Histoire, développements, en Prague: National Museum, 1968. François Mairesse et Bernard Van den jeux actuels. 4th ed. Paris: Armand Colin, O´DOHERTY, Brian (ed.). Museums in Crisis. Driessche. Bruxelles: Tandem, 2008. 2014. ISBN 978-2-200-29118-1. New York: Braziller, 1972. ISBN 978-0- WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Allge GREGOROVÁ, Anna. La muséologie, science -8076-0629-2. meinen Museologie. 2nd ed. Wien: Böhlau ou seulement travail pratique du musée? POULOT, Dominique. Musée et muséologie. Verlag, 1996. ISBN 978-3-205-99130-4. Mu WoP/DoTraM, 1980, no. 1, pp. 19–21. Paris: La découverte, 2005. ISBN 978-2- WALZ, Markus (ed.). Handbuch Museum. GUZIN LUKIC, Nada. La muséologie de l’Est: -7071-6340-0. Geschichte – Aufgaben – Perspektiven. la construction d’une discipline scienti- RIVIÈRE, Georges Henri. La muséologie selon Stuttgart: Metzler, 2016. ISBN 978-3- fique et la circulation transnationale des Georges Henri Rivière. Paris: Dunod, 1989, -476-02375-9. idées en muséologie. ICOFOM Study Se p. 180 sq. ISBN 978-2-04-018706-4. ries, 2015, vol. 43a, pp. 111–125. SCHIELE, Bernard. Les études de visiteurs. HUDSON, Kenneth. Who are the ‘museolo La formation, l’évolution et les défis ac- FRANÇOIS MAIRESSE gists’ and for whose benefit do they tuels du champ. In DAIGNAULT, Lucie exist? In STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. (ed.). Museo and Bernard SCHIELE. Les musées et leurs Université Paris 3 Sorbonne nouvelle, logy for Tomorrow’s World: proceedings publics, savoirs et enjeux. Québec: Presses Paris, France of the international symposium held at universitaires de Québec, 2014, pp. 7–69. [email protected] Masaryk University, Brno, Oct 9–11, 1996. ISBN 978-2-7605-4148-1. München: Müller-Straten, 1997, pp. 102– SCHREINER, Klaus. Einführung in die Mu François Mairesse teaches mu seology and cultural economics at 110. ISBN 978-3-932704-57-4. seologie – ein Beitrag zu den theoretischen the Université Paris 3 Sorbonne JAGOŠOVÁ, Lucie and Lenka MRÁZOVÁ. Grundlagen der Museumsarbeit, 2 vol. nouvelle. He also teaches mu- Tradition of museum pedagogy in the Neubrandenbourg: [s. n.], 1982. seology at the Ecole du Louvre. Czech Republic and the role of Brno STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Archeologie a muzeologie. After a Master in Management museology on its development. Museolo Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2005. ISBN and a Master in Art History at the gica Brunensia, 2015, vol. 7, no. 4/2, pp. 80-210-3861-6. Université Libre de Bruxelles, he 56–64. ISSN 1805-4722. STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Brno: Education in Mu received his PhD in 1998 at the MACDONALD, Sharon (ed.). A Companion to seology. Brno: Purkyně University and same university. He first worked at Museum Studies. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, Moravian Museum, 1974. the Fonds National de la Recherche scientifique, and then moved to the 2011. ISBN 978-1-4051-0839-3. STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Cultural Heritage: a Big Cabinet of the Minister President MAIRESSE, François and André DES- Word, a Vague Term. PACT, 1997, of the French speaking govern- VALLÉES. Muséologie. In MAIRESSE, pp. 635–638. ment of Belgium. He was formerly François and André DESVALLÉES (eds.). STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. La muséologie – science Director of the Musée royal de Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie. ou seulement travail pratique du musée? Mariemont (Morlanwelz) in Bel- Paris: Armand Colin, 2011, pp. 343–384. MuWoP/DoTraM, 1980, no. 1, pp. 42–44. gium. In 2002, he became Director ISBN 978-2-200-27037-7. STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Muséologie Introduc of the Musee royal de Mariemont. MAROEVIĆ, Ivo. Introduction to Museology – tion aux études: destinée aux étudiants He is the author of several articles the European Approach. Munich: Verlag de l’Ecole Internationale d’Été de Muséol and books on museology, among them: La médiation culturelle, Christian Müller-Straten, 1998. ISBN ogie – EIEM. Brno: Université Masaryk, Paris, Armand Colin, 2013 (with 978-3-932704-52-9. 1995. ISBN 80-210-0705-2. Serge Chaumier), Dictionnaire MENSCH, Peter van. Some impressions con- STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Museology as a science (a encyclopédique de muséologie, cerning Vinoš Sofka (1929–2016): Law- thesis). Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, Paris, Armand Colin, 2011 (edited yer, Bricklayer, Administrator, and Mu- pp. 33–40. with André Desvallées); Le musée seologist. Museologica Brunensia, 2016, STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Ten years of the Inter- hybride, Paris, la Documentation vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 74–76. ISSN 1805-4722. national Summer School of Museology. française, 2010; L’inaliénabilité des DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-1-9 In STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. (ed.). Museology collections de musées en question MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a Methodology for Tomorrow’s World: proceedings of (ed.), Morlanwelz, Musée royal de Mariemont, 2009, etc. of Museology. Zagreb: University of Za- the international symposium held at greb, Faculty of Philosophy, 1992. Doc- Masaryk University, Brno, Oct 9–11, 1996. François Mairesse přednáší tor’s Thesis. Munich: Verlag Müller-Straten, 1997, muzeologii a kulturní ekonomii MESSAGE, Kylie and Andrea WITCOMB (vol. pp. 143–151. ISSOM Publications. ISBN na Université Paris 3 Sorbonne eds). Museum Theory. An Expanded Field. 978-3932704574. nouvelle a muzeologii na Ecole MACDONALD, Sharon and Helen REES LE- Trésor de la langue française informatisé [on- du Louvre. Po absolvování magis- AHY (eds.). The International Handbooks line]. [cit. 2016-08-30]. Available from terského studia v oboru manage- of Museum Studies. Oxford: Wiley Black- www:
35 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
1998 na stejné univerzitě i titul PhD. Nejdřív pracoval v Národním fondu pro vědecký výzkum a poté přešel do Kabinetu Ministerské- ho předsedy francouzsky mluvící vlády Belgie. V roce 2002 se stal ředitelem Královského muzea v Marienmont (Morlanwelz) v Bel- gii. Je autorem několika článků a knih o muzeologii, například: La médiation culturelle, Paris, Armand Colin, 2013 (spoluautor Serge Chaumier), Dictionnaire en- cyclopédique de muséologie, Paris, Armand Colin, 2011 (Ed. společně s André Desvallées); Le musée hybride, Paris, la Documentation française, 2010; L’inaliénabilité des collections de musées en question (Ed.), Morlanwelz, Musée royal de Mariemont, 2009, atd.
36 2016 /05 /02
STUDIE/ARTICLES
ZBYNĚK ZBYSLAV STRÁNSKÝ AND SPANISH
MUSEOLOGY DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-4
FRANCISCA HERNÁNDEZ – J. PEDRO LORENTE
ABSTRACT/ABSTRAKT KEYWORDS/KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA over the world: museality, musealia, the museal condition, metamuse- Z. Z. Stránský’s commitment to the Z. Z. Stránský – museological the- ology, etc. Their universal spread scientific character of museology as ory – scientific discipline – Spanish reached momentum when ICOFOM an established discipline should be museologists – museology training – started an international debate specially highlighted as his greatest museum studies on such topics in 1980 discussing intellectual legacy, in as much as Z. Z. Stránský, teorie muzeologie, in the first issue of Museological his contributions have influenced vědní obor, španělská muzeologie, Working Papers a difficult dilemma: many museum thinkers from other muzeologická příprava, studium “Museology – science or just prac- countries. Spanish museologists muzeologie tical museum work?“ There were entered in contact with Stránský’s answers by museum thinkers from ideas through the debates in ICO- a variety of countries like France, FOM, his courses in ISSOM and The death of Professor Z. Z. Strán- Sweden, Canada, Great Britain, some museological publications. ský on 21 January 2016, after USSR, USA, the German Demo- His example as an academic and his a long life devoted to studies, re- cratic Republic, Japan, Syria and, own conception of metamuseology search and teaching, combining his most of all, Czechoslovakia, whose or other personal outputs served as knowledge of history, philosophy, Brno School of Museology was a stimulus for the development of archaeology, music theory and mu- well represented with a paper by museology in Spain. seology, has produced a great void Z. Z. Stránský,2 no Spaniard partici in international academia. He not pated. Yet, the Spanish presence in Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský only was the leading figure of Czech the International Council of Muse- a španělská muzeologie museology during the second half ums was then gaining prominence of the twentieth century, but also at that time, since Luis Monreal Te- Za největší ideologický odkaz a fundamental agent in developing jada was Secretary General of ICOM Z. Z. Stránského je možné považo- the humanistic values of European and actively organising museologi- vat jeho úsilí o etablování muzeolo society.1 We intend to highlight here cal meetings in his own city, Barce- gie jako vědního oboru, stejně tak some of his influential contributions lona.3 Thus, it was no coincidence jako jeho vliv na rozvoj muzeolo to the field of museology, to which that the 2nd issue of MuWoP in 1981, gického myšlení doma i v zahraničí. he devoted much of his time and devoted to “Interdisciplinarity in Španělští muzeologové se měli efforts; more specifically, this paper museology“ included some papers možnost seznámit se Stránského shows part of his impact, mostly by members of the so-called “Grup myšlenkami prostřednictvím disku through ICOFOM and ISSOM, in Tècnic de Museologia”, just created sí na půdě ICOFOM, vzdělávacích Spanish museologists. within the Associació de Trebal- kurzů v rámci ISSOM a některých ladors de Museus de Catalunya: muzeologických publikací. Jeho 1. Stránský and his concept of notably, Domènec Miquel i Serra, zkušenosti jako akademického Museology a member of the Advisory Service pracovníka a také jeho vlastní kon- Commission of Catalan Museums cepce metamuzeologie či jiné tvůrčí The Museology flourishing in East- and Eulàlia Morral i Romeu, direc- výstupy skýtaly dostatek podnětů ern European countries during the tor of the Textile Museum of Ter- pro rozvoj muzeologie ve Španěls- difficult years of the Cold War pro- ku. duced concepts that, until then, had not been used, but soon began to 2 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology – science or be familiar for museum curators all just practical museum work? Museological Working Papers (MuWoP), 1980, no. 1, pp. 42–44.
1 DOLÁK, Jan a Jana VAVŘÍKOVÁ. Muzeolog 3 BELLIDO BLANCO, Antonio. La renovación Z. Z. Stránský: Život a dílo. Brno: Masarykova museológica en España durante los años setenta. univerzita, 2006. Museo, 2005, vol. 10, p. 333.
37 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
rassa.4 For these authors, museums These discussions highlighted how contribution on the subject of ecolo were facing a profound crisis from different participants tried to re- gy and museums was then treated which a renewal movement should define the concept of museological within ICOFOM by Jaume Terradas, begin questioning their definition, knowledge from their personal professor of ecology at the Faculty which could evolve from merely point of view, and it seems that of Sciences of the Autonomous Uni- collecting policies to new interdisci- most would agree with Stránský versity of Barcelona, highlighting plinary perspectives. considering that museology was not the need of scientific studies of the yet consolidated as a science, be- environment.7 He demanded more A little later joined these debates cause it did not have a unity of cri- ecological and environmental edu- Rosario Carrillo de San Segundo, teria, methods or vocabulary. But, cation in order to sensitize individu- member of the Higher Council for most of all, it lacked universally als and society about environmental Scientific Research in Madrid. As- recognized authorities in the field; issues, following the examples of suming that museology was a sci- thus the influence of Stránský or Anglo-Saxon and French-speaking ence in formation, she considered other authors was still scarce. The countries. Like Stránský, he stated necessary to maintain cross-polli- Spaniards were already assuming that museological methodologies nation with different branches of the terminological difference be- should be focused on direct contact knowledge: for her, the interdisci- tween “museology“, i.e. theoretical with reality. Later the argument plinary nature of the methodology thinking, and “museography“ or was complemented by three com- used in exhibitions was paramount, practical issues. However Stránský patriots, Domènec Miquel, Andrea taking into account the general was a difficult read for them, not García Sastre and Eulàlia Morral, theory of systems and analysis, just due to language barriers but proclaiming that museum objects theories of communication and also because his theoretical stance, were no longer to be considered as decision-making, semiotic analy always prone to high epistemolo mere material items.8 All natural sis, group dynamics, the theory of gical levels. Nevertheless, he would elements forming the environment networks or aspects of ecology and often say that the most important in which we live, become tangible economy. Hence the existence of goal was to combine both theoreti- and intangible testimonies, regard- a wide disparity of criteria and mu- cal knowledge and practical work, less of their physical condition. seological approaches: meanwhile, serving to modify the reality of What is required is a subject able to she saw the need to clarify the the museum and the world around, recognize such complex evidences evolutionary stages hitherto, either which certainly opened other doors within the museum and to commu- from the point of view of museolog- in the minds of environmentally nicate them to the public. During ical historiography or concerning and socially committed museum this process three elements should epistemology and history in gener- people. be present: the document read as al.5 witness, its elucidation offered by 2. The role of museums regarding the museum to the public, and the 4 MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia issues of ecology and collections added value that is given through MORRAL I ROMEU. From pluridisciplinarity to this interpretation. This kind of interdisciplinarity: the experience of the local museums in Catalonia. Interdisciplinarity in In a society increasingly aware of theoretical elaboration was then museology. Museological Working Papers (MuWoP), the need to protect the environ- further vindicated, in the context 1981, no. 2, pp. 43–45. ment, it is no wonder that museums of the debate on “Collecting Today 5 CARRILLO DE SAN SEGUNDO, Rosario. Méthodologie Muséologique et Formation Profes- were called to participate actively for Tomorrow“, by Dolors Forrellad, sionelle. Symposium Methodology of Museology to promote ecological concerns, who lamented that collection-ori- and Professional Training. Stockholm. ICOFOM Study Series, 1983, vol. 5, p. 52. A trained painter integrate the values of nature and ented museum professionals had and art historian with a Museology Diploma from humankind. Accordingly, Strán- little interest in the study of mu- the Louvre School in Paris, Rosario Carrillo foun ský urged to conceive exhibitions seology, preferring to dump their ded in 1982 the group DIGMA (Difusión Cultural y Museológica): This group of people devoted constructed on an ecological basis, efforts in the everyday aspects to cultural dissemination and museology would keeping in mind that any activity of be active in Madrid for more than thirty years, arranging weekly reading discussions, organizing the museum must be geared accord- 6 lectures and travel visits to museums or cultural ingly. That meant that museums 7 TERRADAS, J. A. Écologie, Environnement, institutions. Ms. Carrillo in her forties in the Education. Le role des musées. Symposium 1980s when she served as elected member of the have to face a new methodology Museum-Territory-Society. New Tendencies/New Board of ICOFOM, where her thinking became on how to collect, document and Practices. London. ICOFOM Study Series, 1983, marked by the Theory of Systems – probably due expose the collections. The Spanish vol. 2, pp. 8–14. to Stránský’s influence – according to her own website, where more information can be found 8 MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec, Andrea GARCÍA about her career and the DIGMA group, which 6 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museum-Territory-Socie and Eulalia MORRAL I ROMEU. Objects de musée: was eventually linked to the staff of the Fábrica ty. Symposium Museum-Territory-Society. New Criteres de Selection. Quelques reflexions. Sym- Nacional de Moneda y Timbre: Rosario Carrillo Tendencies/New Practices. London. ICOFOM Study posium Collecting Today for Tomorrow. Leiden. [online]. 2013 [cit. 2016-10-15]. Available from Series, 1983, vol. 2, p. 30. ICOFOM Study Series, 1984, vol. 7, p. 6. www:
38 2016 /05 /02
of the museum.9 In a later paper, 3. Museology, social identity and aspects, composed of different in- discussing the issue of substitute people’s development gredients that can be diverse as museum-items, she pondered about a cultural product.13 The museum copies serving as replacements for Coinciding with the outburst of had played a crucial role in Western the originals that have disappeared the “new museology“, the strive of cultural identity during the nine- or are in danger of disappearing, museums for social engagement teenth and twentieth centuries as or used in museums to didactically and development was a recurrent social mechanism of passage and explain the objects and processes topic in ICOFOM, with different self-affirmation of ourselves, as -ex that are not obvious. In proper mu- approaches from Spain or from pansion valves nourishing our need seological accuracy, she stated that Stránský and his circle. Catalan for admiration. Foucault might have copies could enhance the collection concerns for cultural identity were agreed with these arguments, based but should never be confused with somehow inspiring the contribution on Marxist theories, yet Stránský originals and the public must be to the colloquium on “Museology ironically dodged this topic in the warned, especially when it comes to and Identity“ by Domènec Miquel symposium on “Museology and Mu- little-known works.10 In that same and Eulàlia Morral.12 They pointed seums“, commenting that everyone debate, Domènec Miquel and Eu- out that the problem of cultural should discover that the museum is làlia Morral stated that objects in uniformity appears when domi- not the centre of the social world. museums can be viewed from dif- nant majorities undermine other Our relationship with the testimo- ferent perspectives, either as mate- idiosyncrasies; but the situation of nies of the past is something that rial items, or as emotional elements domination does not always mean can be questioned according to the that give us a contextualized infor- assimilation. Acculturation is a lack needs of the changing present. The mation.11 From the moment we see of internal cohesion of the group museum, according to Stránský, an object, our glance is influenced and, in fact, the lack of a model is a solution to a problem raised by a distance factor, be it chron- with which to identify because it is in its dual dimension of space and ological or cultural, interposed not possible. It can happen to im- time, but not necessarily the only between visitors and the object, migrants who create a new mestizo or the best answer.14 He wondered always wrapped by that additional identity. The crisis and accultura- if museology was a consequence intermediation, which may distort tion lead to situations of anxiety. of the existence of museums or it the authentic information it offers. Museums play a crucial role in such already existed before they were In substitutes, however, this value endeavours, preserving the testi- created. Are museums the subject of does not exist because we lack that monies of development, the signs museology or, rather, should them distance: even if the material used of identity and collective memory, be regarded as a means to promote can match exactly the original ob- offering the elements that allow us the rapprochement of museology to ject, its substitute replaces in the to identify ourselves as members of reality? But Domènec Miquel and museum the physical presence of a particular group model. But they Eulàlia Morral as most members of the original. But could it replace the can also be used to destroy certain ICOFOM in the 1980s, placed the documentary value of the original? identities, presenting unrealistic museum in the centre of the debate: models that leave the individual museology exists because there defenceless in the face of aggressive are museums.15 For her side, Dolors colonizing cultures. Here comes Forrellad stated then that museums ethics into play. Museums have are created in the community in 9 FORRELLAD I DOMÈNECH, Dolors. Contribu- always been close to the dominant tions to the symposium. Sub-topic no. 4: Current minorities, those with the real and 13 MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia acquisition policy and its appropriateness for MORRAL I ROMEU. Comments and views on tomorrow needs. Symposium Collecting Today for effective power; but they should be basic papers presented in ISS no. 10. Symposium Tomorrow. Leiden. ICOFOM Study Series, 1984, useful in other ways, not just for Museology and Identity. Comments and Views. vol. 4, pp. 122–127; FORRELLAD I DOMÈNECH, the ideological controls of the po Buenos Aires. ICOFOM Study Series, 1986, vol. 11, Dolors. Collecter aujourd´hui pour demain. pp. 41–43. Quelques reflexions. Symposium Collecting Today pulation. Miquel and Morral speak 14 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Breaking down the for Tomorrow. Leiden. ICOFOM Study Series, 1984, of identity as a dynamic concept, topic. What are the right questions? Symposium vol. 4, p. 27. always in evolution and transfor- Museology and Museums. Helsinki-Espoo. 10 FORRELLAD I DOMÈNECH, Dolors. Sub-topic ICOFOM Study Series, 1987, vol. 12, p. 16. no. 4: Substitutes – The implications for the work mation, which implies differences, 15 MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia MOR- of museums. Symposium Originals and Substitutes either in conscious and unconscious RAL I ROMEU. Contributions au colloque. Sym- in Museums. Zagreb. ICOFOM Study Series, 1985, posium Museology and Museums. Helsinki-Espoo. vol. 8, p. 161ff. ICOFOM Study Series, 1987, vol. 12, pp. 199–209; 11 MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia 12 MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia MOR- MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia MORRAL MORRAL I ROMEU. Sub-topic no. 3: Substitutes. RAL I ROMEU. Contributions to the colloquium I ROMEU. Comments and views on basic papers Typology of substitutes. Symposium Originals and on Identity. Symposium Museology and Identity. presented in ISS 12. Symposium Museology and Museums. Zagreb. ICOFOM Study Series, 1985, Buenos Aires. ICOFOM Study Series, 1986, vol. 10, Museums. Helsinki-Espoo. ICOFOM Study Series, vol. 3, pp. 127–133. pp. 211–218. 1987, vol. 13, pp. 53–55.
39 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
order to fulfil their duties.16 The and the level of development: while is supposed to be the only valid interaction museum-society exists industrial countries had a ratio of one, since there are other cultures thanks to the efforts of broadcast- one museum for 30,500 inhabit- that have different visions on the ing professionals. They ensure that ants, in Africa the proportion was museum, which are better suited to museums no longer remain a de- 1,500,000 h per museum. For her, their needs. In her contribution to posit of material evidence, enjoyed museology could be applied to the the volume on “Museology’s future. only by some sectors of society, to solution of practical problems but Some heterodox thoughts“, Eulàlia become a source of information and this application should respond Morral praised heritage as a social research for everyone. The history naturally to the need to use the connection, leading us from memo- of museums had as a starting point specificities of its scientific know ry to identity; but, on the one hand, some inherited collections, but ledge within the global context. In she doubted that heritage could they often have nothing to do with European countries we are accus- be equated to memory because its the present goals extolled today to tomed to seeing the museum as an preservation was to be considered serve the community. Museology element of our history. By contrast, as the outcome of a contingency or needs to become better known, in other continents, museums were a subjective choice.20 The emphasis more precisely defined, but within founded as a cultural imposition, was then put in the processes of a framework based on experiences, which played a more or less explicit differentiation, out of aesthetic and methods and systems relating to the role in colonization processes and folkloric common canons! people. Summarizing general con- thus epitomized the intrusion of siderations about museums and de- a foreign culture, interfering with 4. Fostering museology in univer- velopment, Eulàlia Morral retorted autochthonous identities. How- sity careers and textbooks that no one could doubt about the ever, as these countries regained evolution attained.17 Museums were their freedom, they did not put an As an academic, Stránský want- under pressure to be transformed, end to museums because they re- ed museology to be a recognized a situation that divided authors: mained a useful instrument for the scientific field of study that could some remained protected behind new ruling minority, in a process be taught in universities. This ran the official definition of museums of Westernization that seemed ir- counter to what many museum and closed to other options, while reversible. Eventually, this legacy workers assumed as “proper profes- others were adapting to institutio was challenged by the proposals sional training“, assuming a certain nal renewal and new realities. emerging from the new concepts inertia in “intellectual immaturi- of heritage emerging in the Third ty“.21 But the University of Brno had “New museology“ bloomed in other World after the impact of liberation pioneered Museology studies from continents as well with revolution- theories, and that point of view the 1920s until 1951 and, following ary museological returns in Europe. framed postmodern thinking even that precedent, a Department of Quoting Stránský, Rosario Carrillo among European museologists. In Museology was created afterwads considered the “musealization phe- that context Domènec Miquel also at the Moravian Museum in Brno, nomenon“ and its use in and by de- reflected on museology and muse- which then became a bridgehead to veloping countries.18 She noted that um institutions as active agents of found the Museology Department already in 1982, during the Inter- change.19 He pointed that in 1987 within the Faculty of Arts and Phi- national Seminar on Financing of van Mensch had proposed a two- losophy at the University. A further Culture, a study on “Museums, an way reflection: on the one hand, the development of major importance investment for development“ was analysis of the basic characteristics was the organization there, in co- presented describing the correlation of the development of museums operation with UNESCO, of the between the situation of museums and, secondly, the fact that, in the International Summer School of face of this development, there are Museology (ISSOM), directed by 16 FORRELLAD I DOMÈNECH, Dolors. Contri- butions au colloque. Symposium Museology and diverse theoretical positions that Stránský from 1986 to 1996. People Museums. Helsinki-Espoo. ICOFOM Study Series, try to give different answers. There- 1987, vol. 12, pp. 105–107. fore, it was necessary to overcome 20 MORRAL I ROMEU, Eulalia. Contribution to 17 MORRAL I ROMEU, Eulalia. Viewpoint 3: The the symposium. Muséologie, future. Quelques museum and development – inside and outside. Western ethnocentrism and stop réflexions héterodoxes. Symposium Forecasting – Trends observed and forecasted. Symposium Mu- considering the museum as an in- A Museological Tool? Museology and Futurology. seology and Museums. Helsinki-Espoo. ICOFOM stitution of a single culture, which Den Haag. ICOFOM Study Series, 1989, vol. 16, Study Series, 1987, vol. 13, pp. 133–135. pp. 185–188.
18 CARRILLO DE SAN SEGUNDO, Rosario. 19 MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec. Contributions to 21 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. The Department of Museology and its use or misuse in the world. the symposium. La Museologie et les Institutions Museology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University Symposium Museology and Developing Coun- Museales comme Agents Actifs de Changement. of Brno and the Questions of Defining a Profile of tries – Help or Manipulation? Hyderabad-Varana- Symposium Forecasting – A Museological Tool? the Museology Curriculum. Symposium Museums, si-New Delhi. ICOFOM Study Series, 1988, vol. 14, Museology and Futurology. Den Haag. ICOFOM Space and Power. Athens-Thessaloniki. ICOFOM p. 108. Study Series, 1989, vol. 16, pp. 179–183. Study Series, 1993, vol. 22, pp. 127–131.
40 2016 /05 /02
from all over the world peregrina areas of cultural management.23 School of Museology,25 his essays ted to Brno in order to attend these While he offered lip praise to new were rarely mentioned in our hand- courses. Thus many museum cura- training programs tailored to the books of museology or in academic tors or students from Spain were specific needs of such cultural pro- references, with just some rare ex- taught by Stránský there and spread fessions in universities, cultural ceptions. One was a scholarly man- henceforward his museological organizations and various public ual written by Luis Alonso, lecturer thinking. These courses had a good authorities, he only mentioned as at the Complutense University, who reputation and were well publicized comparable examples the most pres- made the effort to review the inter- in this country.22 tigious training programs in other national origins of museology and countries, with no reference what- its foundations as an established The new aspiration for formal soever to the studies already offered discipline before gloating over the museology training was gaining at that time in several Spanish uni- triumphant “new museology“, ul- support in Spain, and therefore it versities. To set things right, it must timately the main thrust of that was no wonder that a Spanish au- be said that back in 1989 three textbook.26 Another example was thor participated then in the debate Postgraduate courses of Museology the doctoral thesis on the history of devoted in one of the sections of had been respectively established documentation management in mu- number 22nd of ICOFOM Study Se- already at the University of the seums, produced in 1999 at the Uni- ries published in 1993, to the theme Basque Country, the University of versity of Murcia by Maria Teresa “From Theory to Practice: Museum Saragossa and the Complutense Uni- Marín Torres, who had been a stu- Training in Europe“. Well-estab- versity of Madrid. Moreover, since dent of the 1996 Summer School lished courses and masters at the 1992 the Antonio Camuñas Founda- of Museology in Brno, which may Faculty of Arts of Masaryk Univer- tion in Madrid was offering a Mas- explain her references to Stránský, sity in Brno, the Department of Mu- ter in Museology and Technical featuring again when that disserta- seums Studies at the University of Expography and in 1995 the Faculty tion was published as a book.27 Leicester, the Reinwardt Academy of Fine Arts of Madrid had started in Amsterdam, the École Nation- the Magister in Museology and Ex- The role-model followed in Spain as ale du Patrimoine of Paris, or the hibitions. Henceforth, many other academic canonical paradigm had University of Basel in Switzerland, flourished in numerous universities always been French, British and were highlighted in monographic of the most important cities in the North-American universities, whose articles, and the same honour was country, such as Barcelona, Gerona, publications and faculty were eager- given to the Escuela Europea de Granada, Valladolid or Santiago de ly quoted here, while the scientific Patrimonio de Barcelona, in an Compostela, offering sometimes outputs of Eastern-European muse- enthusiastic report signed by its broad museological approaches and ologists or from other international founder, Xavier Ballbé. In fact, that in some cases more specific training campuses often fell into oblivion. so-called European School of Heri in museum education, conservation Even the philosophical debates of tage was a short-lived initiative cre- or other specialities.24 ICOFOM tended to be disregarded ated by him in 1991 as director of by this developing academe, which a private cultural foundation recei By the end of the 20th century might explain our conspicuous ving support of the European Social Spanish universities were at last absence in that forum all over the Fund and the Municipality of Bar- emulating the precedent set in Brno golden years of postmodern theo- celona. This praiseworthy initiative many decades before, although this ries, until the participation in 2002 was based on an integral concept parallelism went no further, to the of Silvia Ventosa Muñoz, curator of cultural heritage, taking into point that we still lack Museology of the Museum of Decorative Arts account different historical, archae- Chairs or Departments. Nonethe- Barcelona, followed by those of ological, ethnographic and artistic less, even though Stránský had pub- Francisca Hernandez, lecturer at issues, in order to ensure an inter- lished both in English and French the Complutense University of Ma- disciplinary training for workers in a booklet synthetizing his lectures drid, who decisively incorporated museums, archives, monuments and at UNESCO’s International Summer 25 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Introduction to the natural parks or other interrelated Study of Museology, for the Students of the Interna- tional Summer School of Museology. Brno: Masaryk University–ISSOM, 1995. 23 BALLBÉ, Xavier. Cultural Assets and the New 22 For example, in 1994 the Newsletter of PH, Professional: The Experience of the Escola Euro- 26 ALONSO FERNÁNDEZ, Luis. Introducción a la the journal published by the Andalusian Institute pea in Barcelona. Symposium Museums, Space and nueva museología. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1999, for Historical Heritage announced in its number Power. Athens-Thessaloniki. ICOFOM Study Series, pp. 33, 48, 49, 55, 72, 163, 165, 166. 1993, vol. 22, pp. 125–126. 7, page 20, the eight issue of ISSOM courses in 27 MARÍN TORRES, María Teresa. Historia de la Specialized Museology to be held from the 9th to rd 24 LORENTE, Jesús-Pedro. Los estudios de Muse- documentación museológica: La gestión de la memo- 23 of September 1994 at Masaryk University, ología en las universidades españolas. Revista de ria artística. Gijón: Trea, 2002, p. 301 footnote 13, Žerotínovo Square, Brno, and featuring the name Museología, 2010, vol. 47, p. 75. and p. 373. of Stránský as their leading figure.
41 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
semiotics and other theories to the universities. In fact, the latest trend Articles in periodicals museological debate in her regular in this academic field seems to papers for ICOFOM.28 More impor- be a broadening of the discipline, BELLIDO BLANCO, Antonio. La renovación tantly, she disseminated the museo- which now claims to be called museológica en España durante los años logical contributions by Stránský or “heritology” in English, “patrimo- setenta. Museo, 2005, vol. 10, pp. 329– other Eastern-European in Spanish niologie” in French or “patrimon- 345. through a best-selling book widely iología” in Spanish; but that desig- LORENTE, Jesús-Pedro. Los estudios de distributed on both sides of the At- nation was first coined by Tomislav Museología en las universidades españo- lantic.29 Šola, and it barks back to the broad las. Revista de Museología, 2010, vol. 47, term “museality” proposed by pp. 72–80. A few years later, she was seconded Stránsky to encompass not just mu- LORENTE, J. Pedro. Razvitie muzeologii kak by her colleague from Saragossa seum items and curatorship but also universitetskoi distsipliny ot tekhnich- University, Jesus-Pedro Lorente, in the museum-like care taken of other eskoi podgotovki k kriticheskoi muzeo- a similar endeavour to synthesize cultural treasures out of museum logii. Voprosy muzeologii, 2011, vol. 2, a historical narrative of museologi walls. In many ways, we all still no. 4, pp. 45–64. cal theories – where, of course, keep on building on to Stránský’s LORENTE, J. Pedro. The development of Stránský deserves a high-ranking legacy. Therefore, as a final word, museum studies in universities: from position. Lorente’s participation we would like to emphasize our technical training to critical museology. at the international conference gratitude to his example, dedicating Museum Management and Curatorship, “Museology-Museum Studies in to his memory our sincere tribute, 2012, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 237–252. DOI: the 21st Century: issues of studies in recognition of his scientific and 10.1080/09647775.2012.701995 and teaching“, jointly organized by philosophical works, which showed MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia Saint Petersburg State University us the way forward for the future MORRAL I ROMEU. From pluridiscipli- and ICOFOM in May 2010, was development of museology in Spain narity to interdisciplinarity: the experi- hence published in Russian,30 then and in the rest of the world. ence of the local museums in Catalonia. in an expanded English version,31 Interdisciplinarity in museology. Muse- which was the basis of a Spanish ological Working Papers (MuWoP), 1981, handbook on the history of muse- BIBLIOGRAPHY: no. 2, pp. 43–45. ology.32 Since then, he and other STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology – science Spanish museologists have joined Monographies or just practical museum work? Museo- other ICOFOM activities that are logical Working Papers (MuWoP), 1980, increasingly appreciated as an ALONSO FERNÁNDEZ, Luis. Introducción no. 1, pp. 42–44. international benchmark for the a la nueva museología. Madrid: Alianza Articles in collective volumes newest theories; but also to reclaim Editorial, 1999. ISBN 978-84-206-5748-6. BALLBÉ, Xavier. Cultural Assets and the the historical bases of museology, DOLÁK, Jan and Jana VAVŘÍKOVÁ. Muze- New Professional: The Experience of the paying homage to pioneers such as olog Z. Z. Stránský: Život a dílo. Brno: Escola Europea in Barcelona. Symposium Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský and his Masarykova univerzita, 2006. ISBN 80- Museums, Space and Power. Athens-Thes- colleagues from Eastern-European -210-4139-0. saloniki. ICOFOM Study Series, 1993, HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Francisca. vol. 22, pp. 125–126. 28 Starting from HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Planteamientos teóricos de la museología. CARRILLO DE SAN SEGUNDO, Rosario. Francisca. The museological discourse and critical Gijón: Trea, 2006. ISBN 978-84-9704- Méthodologie Muséologique et Formation interpretation of History. Museology – A field of Knowledge. Museology and History. Córdoba, -225-3. Professionelle. Symposium Methodology Argentina. ICOFOM Study Series, 2006, vol. 35, LORENTE, Jesús-Pedro. Manual de historia of Museology and Professional Training. pp. 306–312. de la Museología. Gijón: Trea, 2012. ISBN Stockholm. ICOFOM Study Series, 1983, 29 HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Francisca. Plant- 978-84-9704-668-8. vol. 5, pp. 52–61. eamientos teóricos de la museología. Gijón: Trea, 2006, pp. 72, 75–77, 109, 111, 113, 129, 133, 137, MARÍN TORRES, María Teresa. Historia de CARRILLO DE SAN SEGUNDO, Rosario. 138, 146, 149, 161, 285–286. la documentación museológica: La gestión Museology and its use or misuse in the 30 LORENTE, J. Pedro. Razvitie muzeologii de la memoria artística. Gijón: Trea, 2002. world. Symposium Museology and Devel- kak universitetskoi distsipliny ot tekhnicheskoi podgotovki k kriticheskoi muzeologii. Voprosy ISBN 978-84-9704-047-1. oping Countries – Help or Manipulation? muzeologii (The Problems of Museology, Journal STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Introduction to the Hyderabad-Varanasi-New Delhi. ICOFOM of the University of St-Petersburg), 2011, vol. 2, Study of Museology, for the Students of the Study Series, 1988, vol. 14, pp. 105–113. no. 4, pp. 45–64. International Summer School of Museo FORRELLAD I DOMÈNECH, Dolors. Con- 31 LORENTE, J. Pedro. The development of muse- um studies in universities: from technical training logy. Brno: Masaryk University–ISSOM, tributions to the symposium. Sub-topic to critical museology. Museum Management and 1995. no. 4: Current acquisition policy and its Curatorship, 2012, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 237–252. appropriateness for tomorrow needs. 32 LORENTE, Jesús-Pedro. Manual de historia de la Museología. Gijón: Trea, 2012, pp. 51, 61, 111. Symposium Collecting Today for Tomor-
42 2016 /05 /02
row. Leiden. ICOFOM Study Series, 1984, on basic papers presented in ISS 12. FRANCISCA HERNÁNDEZ vol. 6, pp. 122–127. Symposium Museology and Museums. FORRELLAD I DOMÈNECH, Dolors. Collect- Helsinki-Espoo. ICOFOM Study Series, Departamento de Prehistoria, Universi- er aujourd´hui pour demain. Quelques 1987, vol. 13, pp. 53–55. dad Complutense de Madrid, España reflexions. Symposium Collecting Today MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec. Contributions [email protected] for Tomorrow. Leiden. ICOFOM Study to the symposium. La Museologie et les Series, 1984, vol. 7, pp. 26–28. Institutions Museales comme Agents Lecturer of Museology and Cul- tural Heritage at the Complutense FORRELLAD I DOMÈNECH, Dolors. Sub-top- Actifs de Changement. Symposium Fore- University of Madrid. She has been ic no. 4: Substitutes – The implications casting – A Museological Tool? Museolo Academic Director of the Master of for the work of museums. Symposium gy and Futurology. Den Haag. ICOFOM Museology taught at that university Originals and Substitutes in Museums. Study Series, 1989, vol. 16, pp. 179–183. in 1989–1999. Member of ICOM and Zagreb. ICOFOM Study Series, 1985, MORRAL I ROMEU, Eulalia. Viewpoint 3: ICOFOM, participating assiduously vol. 8, pp. 161–167. The museum and development – in- in ICOFOM Study Series, she cur- FORRELLAD I DOMÈNECH, Dolors. Con- side and outside. Trends observed and rently devotes her research to the study of theoretical and practical tributions au colloque. Symposium Mu- forecasted. Symposium Museology and museology and its interrelation- seology and Museums. Helsinki-Espoo. Museums. Helsinki-Espoo. ICOFOM Study ship with the natural and cultural ICOFOM Study Series, 1987, vol. 12, Series, 1987, vol. 13, pp. 133–135. heritage. pp. 105–107. MORRAL I ROMEU, Eulalia. Contribution HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Francisca. The to the symposium. Muséologie, future. Přednáší v oboru Muzeologie museological discourse and critical inter- Quelques réflexions héterodoxes. Sympo- a kulturní dědictví na Univerzitě pretation of History. Museology – A field sium Forecasting – A Museological Tool? Complutense v Madridu. V letech 1989–1999 působila na univer- of Knowledge. Museology and History. Museology and Futurology. Den Haag. zitě jako studijní poradkyně pro Córdoba, Argentina. ICOFOM Study Se- ICOFOM Study Series, 1989, vol. 16, magisterské studium muzeologie. ries, 2006, vol. 35 pp. 306–312. pp. 185–188. Je členkou ICOM a ICOFOM, často MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec, Andrea STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museum-Territo- publikuje v periodiku Studie ICO- GARCÍA and Eulalia MORRAL I ROMEU. ry-Society. Symposium Museum-Territo- FOM. V současnosti se její výzkum- Objects de musée: Critères de Selection. ry-Society. New Tendencies/New Practic- ná činnost zaměřuje na teoretickou a praktickou muzeologii a její vztah Quelques reflexions. Symposium Collect- es. London. ICOFOM Study Series, 1983, k přírodnímu a kulturnímu dědictví. ing Today for Tomorrow. Leiden. ICOFOM vol. 2, pp. 27–33. Study Series, 1984, vol. 7, pp. 5–10. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Breaking down the MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia topic. What are the right questions? Sym- J. PEDRO LORENTE MORRAL I ROMEU. Sub-topic no. 3: posium Museology and Museums. Hel- Substitutes. Typology of substitutes. Sym- sinki-Espoo. ICOFOM Study Series, 1987, Departamento de Historia del Arte, Universidad de Zaragoza, España posium Originals and Museums. Zagreb. vol. 12, p. 16. [email protected] ICOFOM Study Series, 1985, vol. 8, pp. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. The Department of 127–133. Museology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Professor of Art History, Museolo MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia University of Brno and the Questions gy and Cultural Heritage at the MORRAL I ROMEU. Contributions to of Defining a Profile of the Museology University of Saragossa, where he is the colloquium on Identity. Symposium Curriculum. Symposium Museums, Space Academic Coordinator of the Master Museology and Identity. Buenos Aires. and Power. Athens-Thessaloniki. ICOFOM of Museums: Education and Com- ICOFOM Study Series, 1986, vol. 10, Study Series, 1993, vol. 22, pp. 127–131. munication and leader of a research pp. 211–218. TERRADAS, J. A. Écologie, Environnement, team on Art in the Public Sphere. Member of ICOM and ICOFOM, he MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia Education. Le role des musées. Symposi- currently devotes his research to the MORRAL I ROMEU. Comments and views um Museum-Territory-Society. New Ten- study of the history of Museology, on basic papers presented in ISS no. dencies/New Practices. London. ICOFOM Art Criticism and Art History. 10. Symposium Museology and Identity. Study Series, 1983, vol. 2, pp. 8–14. Comments and Views. Buenos Aires. Profesor v oboru Dějiny umění, ICOFOM Study Series, 1986, vol. 11, Web sites muzeologie a kulturní dědictví na Univerzitě v Zaragoze, kde působí pp. 41–43. jako studijní koordinátor pro ma- MIQUEL I SERRA, Domènec and Eulalia Rosario Carrillo [online]. 2013 [cit. 2016- gisterské studium Muzejní edukace MORRAL I ROMEU. Contributions au 10-15]. Available from www:
43 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
STUDIE/ARTICLES
TOO EARLY, TOO LATE: THE RELEVANCE OF ZBYNĚK Z. STRÁNSKÝ
FOR GERMAN MUSEOLOGY DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-5
MARKUS WALZ
ABSTRACT/ABSTRAKT: v NDR přispěl svými publikacemi Stránský and the “museological a přednáškami k intenzivnímu pro season” in the GDR Zbyněk Stránský’s influence on cesu formování muzeologie jako German museology has three facets: vědního oboru, který započal kon The late 1970ies and the 1980ies in the GDR, he contributes publi cem 70. let 20. století. Jeho koncept are a period of vivid interest in mu cations and lectures to an intense muzeality však narazil na odpor – seological theory in the GDR: a new process of defining museology as an bylo mu vyčítáno, že není marxi scientific periodical,Museologische academic discipline, starting in the stický a tudíž není vědecký. V zá Forschung, starts in 1982, the Berlin late 1970ies. Controversies concern padním Německu se začalo o mu University accepts the Introduction his concept of museality – with the zeologii jako vědě diskutovat v roce to Museology1 by Klaus Schreiner, accusation of a non-Marxist and 1988. Po sjednocení Německa zájem director of the museum of agricul therefore non-scientific position. o muzeologii jako akademickou tural history at Alt-Schwerin, as Western Germany starts a discus disciplínu značně ochabl, ačkoli dissertation. The GDR’s most im sion about the discipline in 1988. Stránský publikoval v periodiku portant natural history museum – After the German unification, the Museum aktuell několik textů v ně a part of the Berlin University – interest in museology as an acade meckém jazyce, které obsahují nové establishes Ilse Jahn as docent of mic field nearly vanished although intelektuální podněty. Mnohem více natural history museology in 1980. Stránský publishes several German pozornosti vzbudil Friedrich Waida Museological thoughts out of other texts with new intellectual accents cher se svými volnými variacemi na states in the Eastern bloc are of in the periodical Museum aktuell. Stránského teoretické modely. Proto high interest. In 1981, the “Institut Friedrich Waidacher’s free varia není nijak překvapivé, že většina für Museumswesen” pragmatically tions of Stránský’s theoretical mo pedagogů, kteří v Německu působí offers a typewritten translation of dels receive much more reception. v studijních programech zaměře Stránský’s Úvod do studia muzeolo- Therefore it doesn’ t surprise that ných na muzeologii, ví o Stránském gie (1979). Stránský contributes two most of the teaching staff of muse jen málo a nejeví o jeho myšlenky texts in German to the journal Neue um related study programmes in dostatečný zájem. Při hledání Strán Museumskunde, dealing with the Germany declare little knowledge ského neologizmu muzealita v ka educational relevance of museum or interest concerning Stránský and talozích knihoven, či na serverech exhibitions2 and the development of his thoughts. A search of Stránský’s Google a Google Scholar (v němči museological terminology.3 neologism museality by library ně) narazíme na podobný výsledek: catalogues, Google and Google „správné“ používání termínu v mu This “museological season” is based Scholar (in German) presents a sim zeologických odborných kruzích, on a bottom-up campaign for mu ilar result: a “correct” use of the vzácné případy indiferentního seology as a new research field and term by the museological inner použití a několik nových pokusů study programme; this will not be circle, rare cases of indifferent use, o použití tohoto pojmu v odlišném and some new trials to create this významu. 1 SCHREINER, Klaus. Einführung in die term with another meaning. Museologie – ein Beitrag zu den theoretischen KEYWORDS/KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA: Grundlagen der Museumsarbeit. Neubrandenburg, 1982 [published as typoscript]. Příliš brzy, příliš pozdě: význam 2 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Die Bildungs- und Zbyňka Z. Stránského pro němec- museology – GDR – Germany – mu- Erziehungsziele der Museumsausstellung als kou muzeologii seality – cultural memory pädagogisch-museologisches Anliegen. Neue Museumskunde, 1982, vol. 25, pp. 45–51. muzeologie – NDR – Německo – 3 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museologische Vliv Zbyňka Stránského na němec muzealita – kulturní paměť Terminologie. Neue Museumskunde, 1988, vol. 31, kou muzeologii má tři aspekty: pp. 12–17.
44 2016 /05 /02
successful in a centralistic dicta Schreiner notes that Stránský’s The discourse concerning the torship without a solid (and ideo ideas have ‘infected’ many museolo internal structure of museology logically proofed) scientific reason. gists in the GDR, but mentions as ventilated some terms which are Therefore, the GDR – contrasting to well that he didn’ t get the approval well known from the internatio the Federal Republic – knows dis of the “Institut für Museumswesen” nal level – and of course from the cussions about the research interest, for publishing ideological com Brno ISSOM – like theoretical and methodology, terminology, and ments against Stránský.8 Schreiner’s applied museology or the history of structure of the discipline. definition of museality as the suit“ - museums and museology. The cur ability of an asset for the museum riculum of the first realized study Several phenomena are proposed collection”9 avoids any relation to programme, natural history museo‑ as the object of museological re Stránský. Stránský himself remem logy, showed a solitary solution search interest – quite similar to the bers an antagonism of “Stránskýsts” with the division in general museol international discourse. Schreiner and “Anti-Stránskýsts” in the GDR ogy (the museology of natural histo refuses Stránský’s museality (as culminating in Schreiner’s letter ry museums!) and special museolo a special documentary value of the campaign “plus and minus of some gies, from anthropology to zoology.13 asset) like any additional value to of Stránský’s museological opinions” the scientific evidence of the object. criticizing a non-Marxist and there From the “old” Federal Republic He criticizes museality (as a human fore non-scientific position. Strán to Unified Germany relationship to the environment) ský himself interpreted this critic as because of its “questionable closeness a comment on his – within publica A Bavarian discussion about muse to bourgeois values” by using anthro tions never declared – intellectual ological study programmes starts in pological arguments and neglecting connection to the West German 1978. Ten years later, this – still un the Marxist dialectic materialism.4 philosophers Martin Heidegger and successful – idea motivates the topic Five years later, he writes a serious Karl Popper.10 “museology – new ways, new aims” parody on Stránský: the specific for a joint conference of ICOM Aus documentary value of assets can’ t Like final point, a handbook of the tria, ICOM Germany (Federal Re be the object of museological re museology of history is published public), and ICOM Switzerland. The search interest – parallel to Strán in 1988, a cooperation of the Soviet Bavarian reflections are presented, ský’s reflections – because these Union and the GDR. This book de and Stránský gives a lecture on mu values were not existing within the fines: Museology“ is a social science seology as a separate discipline.14 material but only by evaluation; us which researches the processes and ing the Marxist point of view, these laws of the conservation of social in- After the German unification, the evaluations – Stránský’s younger formation and of the communication former GDR college for museolo definition of museality – can’ t be of knowledge and emotions by muse- gists is transformed to a study pro permanent but have to change with um assets.”11 And, closer to Strán gramme of the Leipzig University the linear development of society. ský: “Museology researches that spe- of Applied Sciences. This institu For Schreiner, the contrary position cific relation of the human being and tion starts a series of museological disguises bourgeois-imperialistic her/his environment which causes conferences. Stránský speaks on class interests5 – a precise shot that museum meaning and a museum museology as a separate discipline against Stránský’s opinion that value is attributed to certain assets.”12 again. Retrospectively, it can be re the cultural values of museality cognized that Stránský gets his only are transtemporary and transper 8 HANSLOK, Andreas. Museologie und German intellectual echo – except sonal6 although Stránský accepts Archivwissenschaft in der DDR. Abgrenzung und of the ideological controversy with Annäherung zweier Nachbarwissenschaften. that the criteria and hierarchies of Marburg: Tectum, 2008, p. 113. Schreiner – at Leipzig: the professor values are temporary and therefore 9 SCHREINER, Klaus. Museologische Termini – of museum pedagogic at this uni changeable phenomena.7 Auswahl. Neubrandenburg, 1982 [published as typoscript], p. 51. 13 JAHN, Ilse. Zum Gegenstand der Museologie und seine Umsetzung in Erfahrungen mit 10 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Ist Museologie eine SCHREINER, Einführung in die Museologie (see Lehrprogrammen „Museologie“ im Museum für 4 kommunistische Wissenschaft? Eine Entgegnung reference 1), vol. 2, pp. 11–12. Naturkunde Berlin. Museologische Forschung. auf deutsche Einstellungen. Museum aktuell, 2001, Beiträge und Informationen, 1982, iss. 2, pp. 32, SCHREINER, Klaus. Forschungsgegenstand iss. 68, p. 2759. 5 36. der Museologie und Disziplingenese. Neue 11 RAZGON, Avram M. Museologie als Museumskunde, 1987, vol. 30, p. 7. 14 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Die theoretischen wissenschaftliche Disziplin. In HERBST, Wolfgang Grundlagen der Museologie als Wissenschaft. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museumsgegenstand – and Konstantin G. LEVYKIN (eds.). Museologie. 6 In AUER, Hermann (ed). Museologie. Neue eine Welt sui generis. Metaphysik des Theoretische Grundlagen und Methodik der Arbeit in Wege – Neue Ziele. Bericht über ein internationales Museumsgegenstandes. Neues Museum. Die Geschichtsmuseen. Berlin (East): Deutscher Verlag Symposium, veranstaltet von den ICOM- österreichische Museumszeitschrift, 1993, iss. 3/4, der Wissenschaften, 1988, p. 19 [translation -Nationalkomitees der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, p. 55. M. W.]. Österreichs und der Schweiz 11.–14. Mai 1988 am 7 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. 12 Ibidem, p. 27 [translation M. W.]. Bodensee. München: K.G. Sauer, 1989, pp. 38–47. Museum aktuell, 2003, iss. 92, p. 3977.
45 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
versity discusses the relation of mu book basically follows Stránský.18 It not happen. Symptomatically, an seum education and museology; he is typical for Waidacher’s writing introduction to museology explains recurs to Stránský’s graphic model strategy to quote precisely that that Stránský developed the three of the intersections of museology Stránský created the term museal sub-disciplines, it mentions the and other disciplines and depicts ity, but to continue with his own term “genetic” instead of “histori an analogous multi-dimensional definition; any discussion or gene cal” but nothing about the “abstract model.15 alogy of this definition is missing.19 museology”; the illustration follows Clearly, Stránský’s anonymous critic Waidacher while the text does not In the beginning millennium, concerning academic authors who at all explain his fourth sub-disci Stránský tries to open new museo avoid correct references to origina pline, meta-museology.24 logical horizons by publishing some tors20 aims to Waidacher. essays in German. He touches evi The reception of Stránský’s ideas dences of the sub-atomic physic and Waidacher’s museology has four in Germany today Pierre Noras’s concept of “lieux de sub-disciplines: meta-museology, mémoire”.16 Indirectly, he mentions historical, theoretical, and applied For gaining an impression of Strán contact points between museality museology. Special museologies – ský’s recent academic relevance in and the influential theory of the as well an aspect in Stránský’s Germany, I held an e-mail survey in cultural memory, introduced since thoughts – are refused with a single April/May of 2016 addressed to the 1992 by the German scientists Jan sentence.21 Consequently, the book teaching staff of university study and Aleida Assmann – with his irritates with its title “general mu programmes. Although museums obvious preference compared to seology” but no mentioned contrary. might be a topic of a wide range any discourse on cultural heritage.17 Stránský criticises on the one hand of disciplines – from art history to The German museological discourse that the model is not new but nearly zoology – a narrow sample was pre runs just the opposite way without identical with the structure of his ferred in order to avoid either a ma any reaction to Stránský. own Brno study programme since jority of missing answers or a lot of the 1980ies; on the other hand, he not interpretable negative answers. The Austrian Friedrich Waidacher, refuses the integration of episte Therefore, the survey was limited 1977–94 director of the Landesmu- mological aspects in the system of to the nine German programmes seum Joanneum at Graz, has the the science itself (meta-museolo concerning museum work or cul greatest importance for the dis gy).22 Ten years after Waidacher’s tural heritage: “Art and Culture semination of Stránský’s ideas handbook, Stránský presented his Mediation” (Bremen), “Historical in German language by writing revised structure of museology in and Cultural Anthropology” (Tübin a voluminous Handbook of General German language: now with four gen), “Jewish Museology” (Hei Museology (1993). This publication sections because of the additional delberg), “Museography” (Berlin), got a second, revised, and a third “abstract” or “structural museol “Museology” (Leipzig), “Museology” edition (1996, 1999) and four ogy” as a synchronous analytical (Würzburg), “Museum and Exhibi translations (1999 Slovakian, 2005 equivalent to the diachronous his tion” (Oldenburg), “European Cul Chinese and Ukrainian, 2007 Lith torical museology (“genetic museo tural Heritage” (Frankfurt/Oder), uanian) – certainly the best known logy”).23 and “Cultural Heritage” (Pader museological publication in German born). “Art History and Museology” language. Realizations of both imaginations (Heidelberg) was excluded because are missing in Germany till today the museological part is completely The relation between Stránský’s ide except of some parallels with imported by the École du Louvre, as and Waidacher’s handbook seems in study programmes of applied Paris; Tübingen was included in quite fragile, although Waidacher museology. A discussion about view of the denomination “cultural indicates that the structure of his disciplinary structures does also anthropology, museum science” of one professorship. 15 VOGT, Arnold. Museologie und 18 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Museumspädagogik. Ihre Rahmenbedingungen Allgemeinen Museologie. 2nd, revised edition. und Perspektiven in Wissenschaft und Praxis. Wien: Böhlau, 1996, p. 140. My simple e-mail questionnaire was In FLÜGEL, Katharina and Arnold VOGT (eds.). 19 Ibidem, pp. 33–34. reduced to three open questions: Museologie als Wissenschaft und Beruf in der 20 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Noch eine „knapp modernen Welt. Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank für first the relevance of Stránský’s ide gefaßte Museologie“. Museum aktuell, 2006, Geisteswissenschaften, 1995, pp. 60–61, 65. as and theories for the recent indi iss. 131, p. 6. 16 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Cyberraum und vidual academic work, second refer 21 Ibidem, p. 44. Museumskultur. Museum aktuell, 2007, iss. 133, pp. 20–24. 22 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. 24 FLÜGEL, Katharina. Einführung in die Museum aktuell, 2003, iss. 93, p. 4028. 17 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. Museologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Museum aktuell, 2003, iss. 92, pp. 3975–3976. 23 Ibidem, pp. 4029, 4153. Buchgesellschaft, 2005, pp. 17–18.
46 2016 /05 /02
ences to Stránský’s ideas within the closely by stressing the relevance of the use as museum exhibit and the individual lectures, and third the fundamental definitions, interdis status of a musealium;25 for Jeggle, preferred authors if other thoughts ciplinary sight, and philosophical professor for European Ethnology, are estimated as more inspiring. foundation; further on, individual museality means professional mu The invitation to free-text answers effects are mentioned (“Stránský seum work.26 Some examination seemed to be sufficient for gaining inspires me with his theories of the theses (concerning different topics) a first impression and as well in authenticity of musealia and with integrate one or another museolog dividual verbalizations. This very his idea of the irreplaceable mu ical publication into their footnotes basic way instead of standardized sealia”). but don’ t correctly connect these answering proposals was chosen by texts with their understanding of supposing that an elaborated online Only three answers touch the ques museality: Weber quotes Waidacher questionnaire might deter more tion concerning alternative litera and Flügel and uses one time the from answering than three, directly ture. All of them name Waidacher; term – without definition – to an visible questions. other mentioned authors are Got nounce her chapter about the his tfried Korff, Krzysztof Pomian, and torical development of a museum I got 19 replies to 36 sent e-mails Anke te Heesen. One person addi type;27 Kühl quotes a definition of (53 %), two oral answers included. tionally sent the actual literature museology by Waidacher and con Eight of the nine universities are list of the introductory module. tinues that it is easy to identify mu represented; eight answers (42 %) Explanations of these preferences or seality in exhibitions because the have their origin in the same in comparisons to Stránský’s work are exhibition context helps the visitors stitution. Most of the replies don’ t missing. to reconstruct a past relation of follow the three questions and an man to reality;28 Huber explains swer in a shorter way. The actual use of the term mu- museality as the presentation of seality in German language authentic assets within a museum The answers can be categorized exhibition.29 In September 2016, into four positions. The majority (10 A second impression of Stránský’s the “Klassik Foundation Weimar” of 19) signalizes little knowledge contemporary relevance can be re organizes a conference dealing with or interest. One answer was given ceived by a search of his neologism collections and exhibitions concern orally in another situation: During museality (in its German expression ing the literary subject Faust; the an academic round table discussion, “Musealität”) with the meta-cata title is “Faust collections: genealo a Dutch colleague asked for the mu logue of German libraries (includ gies, media, museality”. seological position of this institute ing the German National Library), and – I think – he got the answer to Google, and Google Scholar. The Some people without any contact my questions (“we do not at all deal results belong to three categories: to museology feel themselves free with topics like Stránský”). The a museological or an indifferent use to create the neologism again. Nell second group (4 of 19) signalizes of the term, and new trials to create (the only German language mono knowledge (“I know Stránský’s rele this term. graph with the title word “Museali vance for the scientific museology“) tät”) defines that the process of but as well Stránský’s irrelevance The museologically informed use of musealization leads to the state mu for their individual research and the term is limited to authors who 25 KRAUS, Stefan. Künstlerbücher: Über die lectures (“I refer to other thoughts are part of the museological dis Musealität eines zeitgenössischen Mediums. and don’ t remark any fruitful use course like the Swiss Schärer or the Das Münster. Zeitschrift für christliche Kunst und of Stránský’s ideas for my subject”). Austrian Waidacher, expanded by Kunstwissenschaft, 2011, vol. 64, pp. 354–365. One person answers that individ one academic librarian. All of them 26 JEGGLE, Utz. Subjektive Heimat – objektive Musealität. Zum Verhältnis von subjektiver ual relevance is missing but that certainly know some of Stránský’s Erlebnisfähigkeit und objektiven Ereignissen. In another colleague – who didn’ t texts. A broader appearance of the EBELING, Susanne (ed.). Literarische Ausstellungen von 1949 bis 1985. Diskussion, Dokumentation, answer – refers to Stránský as part term in its museological meaning is Bibliographie. München: Walter De Gruyter, 1991, of the history of the discipline. missing. pp. 77–93. The third group (4 of 19) gives 27 WEBER, Lena. Klostermuseen im some details. Two persons historize The indifferent position is clearly deutschsprachigen Raum. Bonn, University, 2013, p. 20. Dissertation. Stránský (“mentioned as one of the shown by some texts with the title 28 KÜHL, Alicia. Modenschauen. Die Behauptung founders of museology”), two per word “Musealität” but without any des Neuen in der Mode. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2015, sons report an indirect reference explanation in the body text – for p. 77. (“more often, we use Waidacher example, the art historian and mu 29 HUBER, Leonhard. Wunderkammer Cyberspace? Gestaltung und Rolle digitaler who follows Stránský intensely”). seum director Kraus gives “Museali Museumsinformationssysteme. Eisenstadt, A single answer touches the topic tät” an unclear meaning between Fachhochschule, 2002, p. 1. Diplomarbeit.
47 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
seality.30 The working group “aes of museality”34 or that the musealia In the same way, the Swiss Martin thetic of religion” of the German as carriers of museality “acquire the Schärer first quotes Waidacher’s association of comparative religion cultural value of memory”.35 definition of museality, but further studies (DVRW) organizes its third on, he writes about the “museality conference May 2009 in Munich: This shift of meaning is less no of things”, museality as a quality of “the development of basic terms of ticed. Even the newest museological musealia by referring to a specific the aesthetic of religion by the ex- encyclopedia recurs to Stránský relation between man and reality, ample museality”. The published but defines museality only with the and about pieces of modern art lectures31 show an understanding cultural value of musealia.36 Some which have got museality just at of the term similar to Nell (without German-language authors follow their origin.41 In another argumen a reference). this way like the Swiss Roger Fayet37 tation (without references), he uses or use museality without definition museality as the term for a quality Obviously, museality is neither in the phrase “objects as carrier of which is won by an asset on the a very common nor a clearly de museality”38 like the Austrian Mar occasion of its musealization.42 The fined German term. One reason for lies Raffler. academic librarian Thomas Fuchs this situation can be found in the first quotes Waidacher’s anthropo genesis of the term and the actual The best known definition of logical constant museality, but in museological discourse. Stránský museality in German language the following sentence, he writes introduces museality while re is written by Waidacher and fol about museality in the meaning of flecting the documentary value of lows Stránský’s younger position: a specific quality of musealia as authentic assets. All of Stránský’s “a specific recognizing and valuating a vehicle of remembrance.43 German texts concerning musea relationship of the human being to lity were published in the 1980ies reality. […] It means that the human Conclusion or later and present the younger being estimates selected objects as definition as a specific relation of evidences of certain phenomena in Within 40 years, Stránský con man to reality expressed by select that way that he/she wants to con- tributed to museological theory ing and conserving objects which serve them without limitation and to and epistemology. He repeated his represent certain cultural values. It communicate them to society.”39 The central points and developed them might be a problem of translations glossary of Waidacher’s last book by repeating. On the other hand, that the musealia are sometimes presents a similar definition but the he had an open mind for new ideas representations or representatives,32 body text speaks of musealia which und published those as well. He sometimes the carrier of museality.33 can “carry” or “express” museali crossed the border of understanding What an object is carrying belongs ty; as well it is mentioned that an the Czech language by publishing to it and no more to the selecting object gains museality by detailed as well in German. But the remark person – the older definition of mu research and documentation.40 able fruits are quite poor even as seality seems to be mixed into the his arguments are welcome like in younger one. A similar misunder the GDR. standing can be found in the phrase 34 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museumsgegenstand – that museology identifies things as eine Welt sui generis. Metaphysik des Stránský originated several aspects Museumsgegenstandes. Neues Museum. Die “representants of the memory value, österreichische Museumszeitschrift, 1993, iss. 3/4, and terms, but a broader reception pp. 53–54. in German language begins with 35 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. Waidacher’s handbook – in Strán Museum aktuell, 2003, iss. 92, p. 3977. ský’s eyes, an illegitimate daughter 36 DESVALLÉES, André and François MAIRESSE 30 NELLE, Anja. Musealität im städtischen (eds.). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie. version. Stránský’s later proposals Kontext. Untersuchung von Musealitätszuständen Paris: Armand Colin, 2011, p. 625. und Musealisierungsprozessen am Beispiel dreier 41 SCHÄRER, Martin R. Die Ausstellung. Theorie spanisch-kolonialer Welterbeortschaften. Cottbus, 37 FAYET, Roger. Das Vokabular der und Exempel. München: Müller-Straten, 2003, Technical University, 2007, p. 11. Dissertation. Dinge. Österreichische Zeitschrift für pp. 47, 51, 61, 64. Geschichtswissenschaften, 2007, vol. 18, p. 7. 31 Journal of Religion in Europe, 2011, vol. 4, 42 SCHÄRER, Martin R. Hat das Kunstwerk iss. 1. 38 RAFFLER, Marlies. Museum – Spiegel der einen besonderen Status? Oder: Sind alle Objekte Nation? Zugänge zur Historischen Museologie am 32 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museumsgegenstand – museologisch gleich? [online]. [cit. 2016-08-25] Beispiel der Genese von Landes- und Nationalmuseen eine Welt sui generis. Metaphysik des Available from www:
48 2016 /05 /02
were published without an echo: FAYET, Roger. Das Vokabular der Dinge. Ös- RAFFLER, Marlies. Museum – Spiegel der Na- German museum professionals seem terreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswis- tion? Zugänge zur Historischen Museologie to be content with a voluminous but senschaften, 2007, vol. 18, pp. 7–31. am Beispiel der Genese von Landes- und ageing handbook. FLÜGEL, Katharina. Einführung in die Mu- Nationalmuseen in der Habsburgermonar- seologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche chie. Wien: Böhlau, 2007. ISBN 978-3- Stránský hoped for intellectual Buchgesellschaft, 2005. ISBN 978-3-534- -205-77731-1. collaboration but got quotations of -09232-1. RAZGON, Avram M. Museologie als wissen different quality. He criticized the FUCHS, Thomas. Bibliotheken zwischen schaftliche Disziplin. In HERBST, Wolf introductions of Flügel and Wai kultureller Memoria, Wissenschaft und gang and Konstantin G. LEVYKIN (eds.). dacher for writing individual opini Musealität. In FUCHS, Thomas (ed.). Das Museologie. Theoretische Grundlagen und ons instead of searching evidence. Buch in Antike, Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Methodik der Arbeit in Geschichtsmuseen. He noted that these university Sonderbestände der Universitätsbibliothek Berlin (East): Deutscher Verlag der Wis docents didn’ t show enough profes Leipzig. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz senschaften, 1988, pp. 16–43. ISBN 978- sional museological penetration of Verlag, 2012, pp. 1–35. ISBN 978-3-447- -3-326-00229-3. the topic – for instance in Flügel’s -06689-1. SCHÄRER, Martin R. Die Ausstellung. manner to present a voluminous HANSLOK, Andreas. Museologie und Ar- Theorie und Exempel. München: Müller- bibliography which predominantly chivwissenschaft in der DDR. Abgrenzung Straten, 2003. ISBN 978-3-932704-75-8. consists of authors who share her und Annäherung zweier Nachbarwissen- SCHÄRER, Martin R. Hat das Kunstwerk own opinion.44 schaften. Marburg: Tectum, 2008. ISBN einen besonderen Status? Oder: Sind 978-3-8288-9581-2. alle Objekte museologisch gleich? [on Looking back, Stránský declares to HUBER, Leonhard. Wunderkammer Cy- line]. [cit. 2016-08-25] Available from be satisfied that the functionality of berspace? Gestaltung und Rolle digitaler www:
49 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
Wieland FÜHR (eds.). Historia in Museo. MARKUS WALZ Festschrift für Frank-Dietrich Jacob zum 60. Geburtstag. Langenweißbach: Beier & Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und Beran, 2004, pp. 471–477. ISBN 978-3- Kultur Leipzig, Fakultät Medien, Leipzig, Bundesrepublik Deutschland -930036-94-3. [email protected] STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Ist Museologie eine kommunistische Wissenschaft? Eine Entgegnung auf deutsche Einstellungen. Markus Walz is Professor of Theo Museum aktuell, 2001, iss. 68, pp. 2758– retical and Historical museology at the University of Applied Sciences 2761. in Leipzig (HTWK). He studied STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. European ethnology and doctoral Museum aktuell, 2003, iss. 92, pp. 3974– studies in History. He did research 3978; 2003, iss. 93, pp. 4028–4030; traineeship at the Landesmuseum 2003, iss. 96, p. 4153. Koblenz, worked as Museum STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museologische Ter consultant for Eastern Westphalia minologie. Neue Museumskunde, 1988, and Lippe in the Westphalian vol. 31, pp. 12–17. Museum Office in Münster. Since STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museumsgegenstand 2001 he works at the University of Applied Sciences in Leipzig. – eine Welt sui generis. Metaphysik des Museumsgegenstandes. Neues Museum. Markus Walz je profesorem teo Die österreichische Museumszeitschrift, retické a historické muzeologie 1993, iss. 3/4, pp. 48–56. na Vysoké škole pro technologii, STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Noch eine „knapp hospodářství a kulturu v Lipsku gefaßte Museologie“. Museum aktuell, (HTWK). Studoval evropskou et 2006, iss. 131, pp. 6–7. nologii a doktorská studia v oboru VOGT, Arnold. Museologie und Museums historie. Absolvoval vědeckou stáž pädagogik. Ihre Rahmenbedingungen v Zemském muzeu v Koblenzi, pracoval jako muzejní poradce und Perspektiven in Wissenschaft und pro Východní Vestfálsko a Lippe Praxis. In FLÜGEL, Katharina and Arnold na Vestfálském úřadu pro muzea VOGT (eds.). Museologie als Wissenschaft v Münsteru. Od roku 2001 působí und Beruf in der modernen Welt. Weimar: na Vysoké škole pro technologii, Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswissen hospodářství a kulturu v Lipsku. schaften, 1995, pp. 53–80. ISBN 978-3- -929742-56-5. WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Allge- meinen Museologie. 2nd, revised edition. Wien: Böhlau, 1996. ISBN 978-3-205- -98445-0. WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Museologie – knapp gefasst. Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau, 2005. ISBN 978-3-205-77268-2. WEBER, Lena. Klostermuseen im deutschspra- chigen Raum. Bonn, University, 2013. Dissertation.
50 2016 /05 /02
STUDIE/ARTICLES
THE THEORY OF MUSEOLOGY. MUSEOLOGY AS IT IS – DEFINED BY TWO PIONEERS:1 ZBYNĚK Z. STRÁNSKÝ2 AND FRIEDRICH WAIDACHER3
DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-6 BERNADETTE BIEDERMANN
ABSTRACT/ABSTRAKT: used as primary sources to try to museology”4 because the philoso- show the progression of museology pher, who had experience in prac- This paper reflects upon the con- as an academic discipline. tical museum work, formulated the nections between two museologi- concepts of museality and museali- cal pioneers, Z. Z. Stránský and F. Teorie muzeologie. Defin- sation and thereby created the basis Waidacher. Stránský developed the ice muzeologie podle Zbyňka for the development of museology object of knowledge of museology Z. Stránského a Friedricha Wai- as an academic discipline. in Brno, while Waidacher submitted dachera a state of research and established The system of museology Stránský a museological terminology espe- Tento příspěvek se zamýšlí nad established makes him a key figure cially for German-speaking areas. spojením mezi dvěma průkopníky in the development of museology.5 v oboru muzeologie, Z. Z. Strán- As he argues, it corresponds to the The connections between the ským a F. Waidacherem. Stránský epistemological basis of a “scientific two museologists have not been v Brně rozvíjel teorii o tom, co je discipline”,6 which has not yet been researched in detail until now. předmětem zkoumání muzeologie, Therefore, this paper focuses on the zatímco Waidacher shrnul stav 4 Original: „Pionier der zeitgemäßen Museologie“, see WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Allgemeinen publications of the two authors con- bádání a vytvořil muzeologickou Museologie. 3rd ed. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau, cerning the development of museo terminologii platnou zejména pro 1999, p. 14. logy as an academic discipline. For německy mluvící oblast. 5 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Der Begriff der Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, supplementum 1. Einführung the first time, these publications are in die Museologie, 1971, pp. 14–39; STRÁNSKÝ, Spojení mezi těmito dvěma Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, supplementum 1. Einführung muzeology zatím nebyla věnová- in die Museologie, 1971, pp. 40–66; STRÁNSKÝ, 1 This paper presents the statements in English na dostatečná pozornost. Tento Zbyněk Z. Museology as a Science. Museologia, 1980, translation by the author. Because of the relevance příspěvek se proto zaměřuje na vol. XI, no. 15, pp. 33–40; STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. of the wordings, the original German quotes are Museologie als Wissenschaft. In Museologie in der given in the footnotes. publikované práce těchto dvou Tschechoslowakischen sozialistischen Republik. Berlin: Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Museumskunde, 2 Zbyněk Z. Stránský is the key figure in the autorů pojednávající o rozvoji 1982, pp. 213–232; STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. rise of museology as an academic discipline. The Museologische Terminologie. Neue Museumskunde, philosopher, museum director and museologist muzeologie jako samostatné vědy. 1988, no. 1, pp. 12–17; STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. was born in 1926 and died in 2016 in the Czech Tyto publikace jsou poprvé využity Museologie als selbständige Wissenschaft. In Republic. In 1962 he began to work at the Moravi- jako primární prameny dokláda- FLÜGEL Katharina and Wolfgang ERNST (eds.). an Museum in Brno and established a museology Museologie als Wissenschaft und Beruf in der department at Purkyně University (now Masaryk jící prosazování muzeologie jako modernen Welt. Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank für University) in Brno, where he habilitated in akademické disciplíny. Geisteswissenschaft, 1995, pp. 11–29; STRÁNSKÝ, 1993; for his CV see for example ICOFOM: ICOM Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie oder: Museologie im International Committee for Museology [online]. Metatext und Kontext. Teil 1. Museum aktuell, Mai/ [cit. 2016-09-06]. Available from www:
51 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
falsified.7 In this context, he prima In addition, Stránský was involved post-communist era.19 But Stránský rily tried to develop suitable meth- in training students in museological also had to oppose critics of his ods. Stránský – like Waidacher – did affairs. He wanted museum staff system of museology, rejecting the not only deal with epistemological to be museologically educated. Ac- charge that museology is a “com- questions of museology and ques- cordingly, in 1986, he established munist science”.20 Accordingly, tions about the quality of musea an international summer school of only a few works developed his ap- lity, but also with the relationship museology in Brno in the context of proach.21 To date, his theories have between museality and practical the chair of museology13 in which rarely been adopted in Anglophone museum work. In this context, mu- Friedrich Waidacher was also in- areas.22 seality refers to questions of core volved.14 While Stránský developed museum tasks such as collecting, a “Brno school” of museology,15 There are several connections preserving, investigating and exhib- Waidacher established a “school” between the two museological iting museum objects.8 For Stránský, of museology in Graz, where mu- pioneers Z. Z. Stránský and F. Wai- the museum itself was not the ob- seological Stránský-Waidacher dacher, on which this article will ject of investigation in museology; thoughts are currently adopted and focus.23 These connections between instead, the museum itself is an reflected upon in several museology the two museologists have not been expression of a time-independent courses.16 subject to detailed research until relationship between man and his now.24 This paper especially refers reality. He named this relationship Stránský published nearly 400 sci- to the concept of museality as point “museality” and, at the same time, entific works,17 primarily written in of reference for the development this term defines the cognitive in- Czech. As a philosopher he partici- of museology as an academic disci- tention of museology. By following pated in societal affairs until late in pline. It therefore draws on Strán- Stránský and Waidacher, this aspect life, analysing them from a critical ský’s and Waidacher’s published differentiates museology from other distance. This is shown by his later works on the mentioned topic. The object-centred approaches,9 from publications that deal, for example, paper uses, for the first time, these source disciplines,10 cultural stu with museums in the digital age18 publications as primary sources dies11 and museum studies.12 as well as with museums in the completed by an interview with
7 DESVALLÈES, Andre and Francois MAIRESSE 19 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Die Museen im Osten (eds.). Key Concepts of Museology [online]. Paris: 13 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museum studies auf im Umbruch – Märkte und Kontexte. Museum Armand Collin, 2010, pp. 53–56 [cit. 2016-09-06]. der Suche nach sich selbst. Museum aktuell, April aktuell, Mai 2005, pp. 6–10. Available from www:
52 2016 /05 /02
F. Waidacher which was not pub- “Museology as a Science”29 later used by Stránský.34 Waidacher35 lished until now.25 calls the same quality “museolo As early as 1971, Stránský submit- gical source sciences”, referring to Contributing to the history of sci- ted two articles entitled “Der Be- multiple disciplines concerned with ence and examining the develop- griff der Museology”30 and “Grun- museum objects, such as art history, ment of museology, this paper looks dlagen der Allgemeinen Museolo- ethnology, archaeology, zoology at the scientific and personal con- gie“,31 which discussed the object and geology. Additionally, Wai- nections and relationships between of knowledge and the system of the dacher introduced the term “neigh- the Czech philosopher and museol- discipline. bour sciences”, defining several ogist and the Austrian ethnologist disciplines extending beyond source and museologist. Accordingly, it Making use of available papers, disciplines, such as psychology, so- particularly investigates the ex- which dealt with theories and ciology, communication studies and changes between the two scientists, investigations in museums, muse- aesthetics. According to Waidacher, the development of museology as ology and museography, Stránský in an interdisciplinary discourse, an academic discipline, the devel- had already differentiated between museology includes several methods opment of the system of museology, a history of museums as a history of used by source disciplines as well its methods and its terminology, as the museum phenomenon (defining as by neighbour sciences.36 With well as the corresponding training the museum as an expression of regard to G. H. Rivière37 and J. Neu- opportunities in museology. museality) and a history of museo stupný, Stránský gave a name to the logy as an academic discipline. This “number of scientific subjects rep- The two museologists are not only distinction was to be developed resented in museums” as “special linked by their professional con- further in the museological studies museology” by summarizing Wai- nection but also by a deep personal by Friedrich Waidacher, who divi dacher’s “source disciplines” and friendship, characterized by mutual ded the section “historical museol- “neighbour sciences”.38 appreciation. In both cases, their ogy” into a “history of the museum focus on museology is likely to phenomenon” and a “development Studying the question of a suitable have resulted from their years of of museology”.32 object of knowledge39 for the dis- experience with everyday museum cipline, Stránský especially refers work, which Stránský called “Vit- In his two fundamental texts, to the considerations of Z. W. Gluz- rinologie”.26 Additionally, both were Stránský attaches particular im- iński.40 According to his opinion, confronted with “widespread tunnel portance to the investigations of museums are places of “accumula- vision on the part of museum staff J. Neustupný,33 who, for example, tion, storage, processing and, finally, working with source disciplines.”27 distinguishes between a general exhibition of museum objects. This This ultimately resulted in their and a special museology. The term four-unit complex, and only this, need to “look beyond the borders.”28 “special museology” in particular is 34 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as a Science. Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, p. 37. 35 Private archive of Prof. Dr. Friedrich Waidacher. Friedrich Waidacher’s letter to Zbyněk Z. Stránský 25 Many thanks for checking and translating on December 26, 1996. 29 Referring to Stránský’s paper with the title Stránský’s publication list written in Czech to Dr. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as a Science. WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Otakar Kirsch. We found out that key concepts of 36 Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, p. 37. Allgemeinen Museologie. 3rd ed. Wien, Köln, his relevant available publications are translated Weimar: Böhlau, 1999, pp. 182, 303. to English and German. Because Stránský 30 “Concept of museology”, see STRÁNSKÝ, spread his relevant ideas on the development Zbyněk Z. Der Begriff der Museologie. 37 See also RIVIÈRE, George H. The museum – of museology also in English and German it Muzeologické sešity, supplementum 1. Einführung in the intensification of scientific research and is justified that this article focuses on these die Museologie, 1971, pp. 14–39. the growth of art production. In International publications. Additional research on the basis symposium on museums in the contemporary world. 31 “Fundamentals of General Museology”, of archival and not published literature at the Paris: UNESCO, 1969. see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der department of museology at Masaryk University Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, 38 „Zahl der wissenschaftlichen, in den Museen in Brno and other archives could bring some supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, vertretenen Fächer“, see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. detailed but probably not extreme fresh insights to 1971, pp. 40–66. Der Begriff der Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, the development of museology. This undertaking supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, would require a separate research project. 32 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der 1971, pp. 28, 29. Allgemeinen Museologie. 3rd ed. Wien, Köln, 26 This concept could be translated as “show Weimar: Böhlau, 1999. 39 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Der Begriff der caseology”. Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, supplementum 33 See STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Der Begriff der 27 Original: „weit verbreiteter Tunnelblick der an 1. Einführung in die Museologie, 1971, p. 22; Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, supplementum 1. Museen arbeitenden Vertreter der Quellenfächer,“ STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der Einführung in die Museologie, 1971, p. 29. See also Friedrich Waidacher, interviewed on 2016-08-29; Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Muzeum a věda. Praha: Národní for the term “source disciplines” see also footnote supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, muzeum, 1968; NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Die Museologie 35. 1971, pp. 40–41. als wissenschaftliche Disziplin. In Museologische 28 Original: „einem Blick über die Grenzen“, Forschung in der ČSSR. Berlin: Institut für 40 GLUZIŃSKI, Wojciech. Problemy wspólczesnego Friedrich Waidacher, interviewed on 2016-08-29. Museumswesen, 1980, pp. 207–212. muzealnictwa. Warschau, 1963.
53 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
decides about the museum.”41 There- In 1980, Stránský extended his con- objects. Consequently, this form is fore, the starting point of scientific siderations on museology as an aca not unchangeable.”49 The subject of interest in museology was to be demic discipline. He defined three “museum theory” thus comprises found in concrete museum objects. approaches that reflected on muse- the “entire area of the museum or The object of the science of muse- ology within a scientific discourse: activity of the museum.”50 But the ums was the “acquisition of complex according to these approaches, mu- “museum reality” is more, namely knowledge of those remnants of the seology was both an independent “the expression of human activity”. It past, which are stored in museums scientific discipline and an applied “carries a certain benefit for society.”51 and held in their collections and science that encompasses theory which represent immediately given and technique of museum work or This thinking has, to a large extent, historical facts.”42 museum theory by foregrounding determined debates on museum-re- methods and techniques of museum lated topics until today. This is also Following these thoughts,43 Strán- work. The third assumption was shown by current museological ský was of the opinion that museo a general one meaning that muse- concepts and ideas, by the way in logy did not at that time correspond um theory makes no sense at all.46 which museology is used as a syn- to the methodological requirements onym for museum studies – studies of an academic discipline due to Taking into account K. R. Popper’s on the museum as an institution.52 the lack of an object of knowledge. scientific epistemology of falsifica- The German translation reproduces None of the authors had so far tion,47 Stránský concluded that, in museology both as “Museumswis- posed a defined object of cognitive an academic discipline, neither the senschaften” (museum studies) and intention, specific methods, a the- museum nor the museum objects “Museumskunde”. Accordingly, oretical system or an individual could be the object of investigation current international discourses scientific language, aspects that in museology.48 As Stránský wrote define five concepts of museology or characterize a science or scientific in 1971 and 1980, this empirical museum studies: “the first and most theory.44 A theory is, in Stránský’s thinking controlling museological commonly accepted meaning applies opinion, more restricted than approaches is based on a misun- the term museology to anything re- a science: “A theory represents the derstanding of the historical and lating to museums,”53 which is also accomplishment of the endeavours social contexts of the development called “museal”. The second defi- of science to acquire new knowledge, of museums: “The view according nition views museum studies as an without reflected [sic] these efforts to which the museum is the object applied science, the third refers to itself. Scientific theories fix the results of museology is a result of the em- the Stránský system regarding mu- achieved by science, they form phases pirical thinking redominating in the seality, and the fourth to “new mu- of science, as Thomas S. Kuhn gives present museology and of the false seology”. The fifth definition aims in his well known work ‘The Struc- understanding of the historical and to include all the mentioned con- ture of Scientific Revolutions’.”45 social conditionality of the existence cepts, summarizing them as a kind of museums. The contemporary mu- seum represents only one form of all historical forms of man’s specific at- 49 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as a Science. Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, p. 36. 41 Original: „Museumswesen eine Anhäufung, titude to reality which, in the course Verwahrung, Verarbeitung und schließlich 50 Original: „gesamte Gebiet der Museumstätigkeit Ausstellung musealer Objekte. Dieser viergliedrige of history, has imparted him the incli- oder des Museums“, see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Komplex, und nur er, entscheidet über das nation to preserve and show selected Der Begriff der Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, Museumswesen“, see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Der supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, Begriff der Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, 1971, p. 33. supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, 46 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as 1971, p. 25. a Science. Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, p. 33. 51 Original: „der Ausdruck menschlicher Aktivität“. Sie „trägt der Gesellschaft einen th 42 Original: „Erwerbung komplexer Kenntnisse 47 POPPER, Karl. Logik der Forschung. 9 ed. bestimmten Nutzen“, see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. von jenen Überresten der Vergangenheit, welche Tübingen, 1989. Der Begriff der Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, in den Museen aufgespeichert und in ihren 48 Stránský was able to study Popper’s work for supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, Sammlungen aufbewahrt sind, die unmittelbar 1971, p. 33. gegebene historische Fakten darstellen“, see the first time when visiting the former home of STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Der Begriff der Museologie. the Waidacher family in Graz. Since free travel 52 DESVALLÈES, Andre and Francois MAIRESSE Muzeologické sešity, supplementum 1. Einführung in was not possible under the communist regime, (eds.). Key Concepts of Museology [online]. Paris: die Museologie, 1971, p. 25. Stránský had chosen to change trains in Graz Armand Collin, 2010, p. 54 [cit. 2016-09-06]. where he stayed overnight. He was able to spend Available from www:
54 2016 /05 /02
of philosophical metatheory for the the objects designated by it bear the definition of museology as a scienti process of documentation.54 quality of museality.”58 fic discipline: “Museology is a self-dif- ferentiating, independent scientific According to Stránský, the muse- Consequently, the appearance of discipline whose object of cognition is um reflects a special expression of museology does not depend on the a specific attitude of Man to reality a time-independent relationship of museum itself, but on the knowl- expressed objectively in various mu- man to reality and, therefore, does edge of a specific relationship be- seum forms throughout the history, not serve as an object of knowledge tween man and his environment. which is an expression and a propor- of an academic system. Concern- Museology is intended to acquire tionate part of the memory systems. ing these considerations, Stránský knowledge of specific aspects of Museology has the nature of social definitively defined the object of reality; it should serve “as a means science, pertains to the sphere scien- knowledge of museology: “The of acquiring knowledge on certain tific disciplines of memory documen- aim which the museum serves, and aspects of reality and it is connected tation, and contributes specifically to which also all the preceding forms to approaches of storing memories.”59 the understanding of Man´s society.”61 of the museum in the lapse of time served, is the expression of Man’s Waidacher deepened and broad- Waidacher added a metatheoretical specific attitude to reality. This atti- ened Stránský’s considerations on definition and classified museology tude is intrinsically linked with the “musealia” by stating: “One can only as a humanistic discipline: “Mu- historical existence of Man which ever meet the requirement of the phe- seology uses philosophical tools to finds its expression in the inclina- nomenon of museum presentation if theoretically explain and practically tion to acquire and preserve, against one understands that each individual implement a specific cognitive and the laws of change and extinction, object is polyvalent, that it represents evaluative relationship between man authentic representatives of values, a set of possible statements in itself. and his reality.”62 whose preservation and use helps to It can carry various meanings and form and strengthen the human and can therefore not be recognized in its The system of museology cultural profile of Man.”55 Stránský essence if it is just one component of named this specific aspect of reali- a larger context. [...] Museum pres- Stránský continuously developed ty “museality”.56 He saw museality entation as an artistic event is in di- the system of museology. In his as a “special aspect of reality, which ametrical opposition to scientific no- first systematization of 1971, he can only be conceived through a re tation. Presenting in museums means proposed a division into a genetic, cognizing and evaluative relationship designing freely.”60 a structural and a practical section of man to reality.”57 “It is linked to of museology. “Genetic museology” its carriers, to items that just bear Against the background of the thus comprises the history of mu- those characteristics which determine previously outlined statements, seography (“Museumswesen”) and museality. We usually call these car- Stránský proposed the following “structural museology” the theory riers museum objects. I am trying to of selection (documentation), the- 58 „Sie ist an ihre Träger gebunden, d. h. an introduce the concept of musealia, Gegenstände, die eben jene Merkmale tragen, saurization and communication. since this term clearly expresses that welche ihre Musealität bedingen. Diese Träger The third strand, which he viewed bezeichnen wir gewöhnlich mit dem Terminus as the section of applied museology museale Sammlungsobjekte. Ich bemühe mich, den Begriff Musealien einzuführen, da dieser Terminus or “museography”, was the applica- klar ausdrückt, dass die von ihm bezeichneten tion of theory to practical museum Objekte Merkmale der Musealität tragen“, see 63 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Der Begriff der Museologie. work. Muzeologické sešity, supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, 1971, p. 36. As a consequence, he specified his 59 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as a Science. Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, p. 38. proposal and focused on the history of acquisition of museality as well 54 DESVALLÈES, Andre and Francois MAIRESSE 60 „Dem Phänomen Präsentation kann man (eds.). Key Concepts of Museology [online]. Paris: überhaupt nur gerecht werden, wenn man versteht, Armand Collin, 2010, p. 56 [cit. 2016-09-06]. dass jedes einzelne Objekt polyvalent ist, dass es für 61 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as a Science. Available from www:
55 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
as on recognizing objects as carriers correlates to museality: “Musea Based on this approach, Waidacher of museality. In his opinion, both lity is that quality of reality, which provided the basis for a museologi- areas determine the field of muse- is so essential to Man that he saves cal museum documentation system ology. In the context of recognizing the carriers of museality from the that views the process of musea objects as carriers of museality, he inevitable decline.”70 With regard lizing and researching museum ob- foregrounded the theory of select- to Stránský, carriers of museality jects as a relational database. It also ing, documenting and thesauriza- are seen as “authentic unmediated represents the respective contextual tion. The theory of museum com- evidence”71 of reality. The related relationships of museum objects munication, however, deals with the process is known as the process of (IMDAS-pro).74 Far-reaching con- “broadcast”, i. e. the communication musealization.72 sequences of the ideas developed “of museum values”.64 by both museologists are currently In several papers73 Waidacher fo- shown in the “Conceptual Reference These thoughts formed the basis cussed on the theory of selection Model” (CIDOC CRM) established of the discipline’s system. In his and musealisation that defines po- by the ICOM “International Com- text on “museology as a science” tential carriers of museality, on the mittee for Documentation” (CI- first published in English in 198065 theory of thesaurization and on the DOC).75 This concept uses object’s and later in multiple German writ- theory of documentation. Within “entities” and “properties” to index ings,66 Stránský submitted the most the scope of these texts, he explains several relationships of objects to consequential systematization of the process of musealizing and people, places and events, and thus museology: he divided museology documenting museum objects. He connects to the philosophical foun- into “historical”, “theoretical” and always involves a twofold research dations of museology developed by “applied” museology.67 This classi- process: the first step is concerned Stránský and Waidacher. fication was further developed and with the recognition of the value deepened by Waidacher.68 and the physical characteristics of Stránský even provided a funda- an object from the perspective of mental definition for the theory The foundations of this division can the respective source science. The of museum communication. Ac- be found in his early 1971 work second step takes into account the cordingly, creating museum pres- titled “Grundlagen der Allgemei- museological quality, recognizing entations is “a purposeful, creative nen Museologie”.69 In his analyses and determining the quality of mu- activity, which arises from the inter- Waidacher refers to texts published seality for its diachronic and syn- nal communication requirement of in 1971 and 1980. Accordingly, the chronic value for society. museality and conveys by forms of Waidacher system of museology museum exhibitions the vivid commu- 70 Original: „Musealität ist jene Qualität der Wirklichkeit, die für den Menschen so wesentlich nication of scientific knowledge which 64 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der ist, dass er die Träger der Musealität vor dem is the nature of museum reality.”76 In Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, unvermeidlichen Untergang schützen muss“, supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der doing so, the abstract is presented 77 1971, pp. 40–41. Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, by the concrete. supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, 65 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as 1971, p. 41. a Science. Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, 74 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Thema mit pp. 33–40. 71 Original: „authentisch unvermittelte Belege“; Variationen zu Friedrich Waidacher. Museum see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der 66 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museologie aktuell, September 2004, p. 10; WAIDACHER, Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, als Wissenschaft. In Museologie in der Friedrich. Museumsinformatik. Modell eines supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, Tschechoslowakischen sozialistischen Republik. multidimensionalen Dokumentationssystems für 1971, p. 45. Berlin: Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Museumsobjekte. Neues Museum, 1995, no. 3+4, Museumskunde, 1982, pp. 213–232. STRÁNSKÝ, 72 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der pp. 92–102. Zbyněk Z. Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, 75 Official homepage CIDOC Conceptual Reference Museologie als Wissenschaft. In AUER, Hermann. supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, Model [online]. [cit. 2016-09-06]. Available from Museologie: Neue Wege – Neue Ziele. München: 1971, p. 45. www:
56 2016 /05 /02
Waidacher follows on from this bitions.83 Waidacher included this Similarly, Stránský criticized the with his definition of the creation provision in his classification of system that Friedrich Waidacher of museum presentations: “Museum types and genera of museum exhibi- had developed by deepening his communication takes place by show- tions within the theory of museum own systematization. In Wai- ing the musealium (museum presenta- communication. Waidacher not only dacher’s classification into “meta- tion) and by its interpretative expla- developed Stránský’s basic ideas in museology”, “historical”, “theore nation (interpretation).”78 “Museum the context of theoretical museolo- tical” and “applied” museology, the presentation is communication and gy, but also in applied museology. knowledge system and the functions evidence through the exhibition of This is the case in his considera- are mixed. The difference between exposita, i. e., musealia, which were tions concerning the presentation of basic and applied research is not selected from the collection for a cer- museum objects, designing museum considered.87 To determine the tain time under consideration of the exhibitions as well as the reception character of museology from the diachronic and synchronic aspects.”79 of museum communication provi- position of a general philosophi This definition also includes the sions by visitors. cal and metascientific position, way in which creating museum Stránský had even coined the term presentations always means making In his latest treatise on metatheo- “ m e t a m u s e o l o g y ” 88 and stressed choices with regard to particular retical considerations of museology that it does not deal with “special values. Accordingly, exhibition di- and the outline of the system of museology”, but with a “heuristic rectors are called upon to decide museology, Stránský compared the system”.89 Therefore, metamuseolo- which aspects of museum objects systematization proposals that had gy should not be understood as be- should be included in the respective been made on the topic of museality ing a part of the museological sys- narrative of a museum exhibition.80 by Peter van Mensch84 and Frie- tem. Therefore, Waidacher had gi drich Waidacher85 to his own con- ven metamuseology a special place With the terms “museum exposi- cept. Here, he partly disagrees with in the dynamic overall structure of tion”81 and “museum exhibition”,82 the classifications he had defined museology. Nevertheless, this led Stránský further defined the nature by this time. Stránský criticized to criticism by Stránský. The clas- of permanent and temporary exhi- van Mensch for his lack of termi- sification of “institutionalization” nology and consistent classification. within “theoretical museology” was Mensch had divided museology into beyond merely “an expression of the 78 Original: „Museale Kommunikation erfolgt durch Vorzeigen der Musealien (Präsentation) und a “theoretical museology” (includ- effort to incorporate the social scale durch ihre deutende Erklärung (Interpretation)“, see ing “historiography of museology of the museum phenomenon.”90 He WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Allgemeinen Museologie. 3rd ed. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau, and methodology of museology”), continued: “components of theoreti- 1999, p. 231. and a “general”, “historic”, “special” cal museology are not functions, but 79 Original: „Museale Präsentation ist Mitteilung and “applied” museology. Strán- knowledge systems.”91 und Beweis durch Vorzeigen von Exposita, d. h. von Musealien, die nach diachronischen und ský also stated that a meta-theory synchronischen Gesichtspunkten für bestimmte Zeit should not be a part of the system 87 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. Teil aus dem Sammlungsfundus selegiert wurden“, see of the theory. In addition, research II. Modelle einer Gliederung der Museologie. WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Allgemeinen Museum aktuell, Juli 2003, p. 4028. Museologie. 3rd ed. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau, was only to occur in the section of 1999, p. 272. applied museology; basic research 88 See for example STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museologie als selbständige Wissenschaft. In 80 MARTINZ-TUREK, Charlotte and Monika was missing. Above all, he found FLÜGEL Katharina and Wolfgang ERNST (eds.). SOMMER-SIEGHART. Storyline. Narrationen im Museologie als Wissenschaft und Beruf in der Museum. Wien: Turia&Kant, 2009; MACDONALDS, fault with the fact that this system modernen Welt. Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank für Sharon. Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum. does not start with a specific cogni- Geisteswissenschaft, 1995, pp. 11–29. Oxford: Berg, 2002; GRAMMEL, Soren. tive process.86 Ausstellungsautorenschaft. Die Konstruktion der 89 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie oder: auktorialen Position des Kurators bei Harald Museologie im Metatext und Kontext. Teil 1. Szeemann. Eine Mikroanalyse. Frankfurt am Main: Museum aktuell, Mai/Juni 2003, p. 3976. 83 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der König, 2005; HEESEN, Anke te. Dingwelten. Das Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, 90 Original: Die Einordnung der Museum als Erkenntnisort. Köln, Weimar, Wien: supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, „Institutionalisierung“ unter die Theoretische Böhlau, 2005; HANAK-LETTNER, Werner. Die 1971, pp. 62–63. Museologie bei F. Waidacher sei darüber Ausstellung als Drama. Wie das Museum aus dem hinaus lediglich „Ausdruck der Bemühung, den Theater entstand. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2011. 84 MENSCH, Peter van. Museology as a gesellschaftlichen Umfang des Phänomens Museum scientific basis for the museum profession. In 81 Original: „museale Exposition“, see einzuarbeiten“, see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. MENSCH, Peter van (ed.). Professionalising the STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der Metamuseologie. Teil II. Modelle einer Gliederung Muses. Amsterdam: AHA Books – Art History Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, der Museologie. Museum aktuell, Juli 2003, Architecture, 1989. supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, p. 4028. 1971, pp. 62–63. 85 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der rd 91 Original: „Bestandteile der theoretischen Allgemeinen Museologie. 3 ed. Wien, Köln, 82 Original: „Museums-Ausstellung“, see Museologie sind jedoch keine Funktionen, sondern Weimar: Böhlau, 1999. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der Erkenntnissysteme“, see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, 86 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. Teil Metamuseologie. Teil II. Modelle einer Gliederung supplementum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, II. Modelle einer Gliederung der Museologie. der Museologie. Museum aktuell, Juli 2003, 1971, pp. 62–63. Museum aktuell, Juli 2003, p. 4028. p. 4028.
57 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
Consequently, Stránský proposed as an institution. The social scale merely states that museology is in his third systematization of mu- of the phenomenon can, however, inter- and transdisciplinary relation seology in 2003 as a “meta-theo- be found in several subregions of to other disciplines.106 ry”.92 He divided museology into the system of museology, which are a “diachronic”,93 a “synchronous”,94 always based on museality. Unfor- A whole chapter in Waidacher’s a “theoretical”95 and an “applied” tunately, no further discussions on “Handbuch” is dedicated to the level.96 In his opinion, this system this subject by museologists can methodologies of investing in the would comprehensively cover the be found. Waidacher had already object of knowledge.107 Accordingly, “theoretical and practical knowledge closed his “scriptorium” at this time museology should use an “elastic levels and represent a basis for au- and Stránský published nothing on multilayered approach in the choice thentic museological research.”97 The this topic except for a short adden- of its methods,”108 whereby museol- individual disciplines would thus dum101 to the problem of systema- ogy usually precedes inductively. In form a “dynamic system”.98 tizing the discipline. terms of inter-subjectively verifiable results, Waidacher proposes empiri Unfortunately, he did not explain Nevertheless, the theory of museal- cal induction, the theory of critical the significant difference to his ity is not only incorporated into the deduction and semiotic “Abduktion- proposal from 1980 to which Wai- current CIDOC-CRM, but also into slogik”.109 Moreover, he emphasizes dacher had already added the me- the consideration of “heritology” as the essence of museology as an in- ta-theory for determining meta-sci- well as “cultural heritage”.102 Strán- terdisciplinary subject that applies entific positions.99 Additionally, in ský approached both topics criti- methods of the source disciplines as the third proposal of “abstract” mu- cally.103 Lastly, it was also shown well as neighbour sciences.110 There- seology, metamuseology, it is part that the quality of museality is not fore, the methods of knowledge of the dynamic structure, whereby only a phenomenon of the museum have to be borrowed depending on all parts are concerned with the ex- interior but also adheres to objects the question and corresponding to ploration of the object of knowledge “in situ”.104 the thesis in relation to museality.111 of museology, which is museality. Methodologies In the area of recognizing and Furthermore, Waidacher sees “in- evaluating potential carriers of mu- stitutionalization” not as an “effort To fulfil the tasks of an academic seality, proven traditional methods to incorporate the social scale of the discipline, museology would have are those of historical sciences, museum phenomenon,”100 but as to develop appropriate methods.105 particularly heuristics and herme- a theory and as practical implemen- Therefore, Stránský emphasizes the neutics. In the field of museum doc- tation of museality by the museum importance of developing museolo umentation within the cross-faculty gical methods to investigate the ob- platform university museums at the 92 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. Teil ject of knowledge. However, these University of Graz, museological II. Modelle einer Gliederung der Museologie. methods are not clearly defined. He methods are, at the moment, ex- Museum aktuell, Juli 2003, p. 4030. tended by tools and methods from 93 By meaning “historical museology”. 101 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Nachtrag zur „Meta- the digital humanities. In the field 94 By meaning “abstract museology”. Museologie“. Museum aktuell, Oktober 2003, p. 4153. of museum communication, mu- 95 Including selection, “Thesaurierung” and presentation. 102 ŠOLA, Tomislav. Essays on Museums and their Theory. Towards the cybernetic museum. 96 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. Teil 106 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Nachtrag zur „Meta- Helsinki: Finnish Museums Association, 1997. Šola II. Modelle einer Gliederung der Museologie. Museologie“. Museum aktuell, Oktober 2003, created the term “Mnemosophie” for a discipline Museum aktuell, Juli 2003, p. 4029. p. 4153. concerned with theories of memory. See also 97 Original: „Dieses System deckte seiner MENSCH, Peter van. Museality at breakfast. 107 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Meinung nach die „theoretischen und praktischen The concept of museality in contemporary Allgemeinen Museologie. 3rd ed. Wien, Köln, Erkenntnisebenen komplex ab und stellt eine Basis museological discourse. Museologica Brunensia, Weimar: Böhlau, 1999, pp. 61–63. für authentische museologische Forschung dar“, see 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 14–19. 108 Original: ein „elastisches vielschichtiges STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. Teil II. Vorgehen in der Wahl der Erkenntnismethoden“. 103 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Cyberraum und Modelle einer Gliederung der Museologie. Museum Museumskultur. Museum aktuell, Februar 2007, 109 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der aktuell, Juli 2003, p. 4029. pp. 20–24. Allgemeinen Museologie. 3rd ed. Wien, Köln, 98 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. Teil Weimar: Böhlau, 1999, pp. 62–63. 104 BIEDERMANN, Bernadette and Nikolaus II. Modelle einer Gliederung der Museologie. REISINGER. Die Stadt als Lebensraum und 110 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der Museum aktuell, Juli 2003, p. 4029. museale Inszenierung zwischen Erinnerung, Allgemeinen Museologie. 3rd ed. Wien, Köln, 99 Siehe dazu WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Assoziation und Wahrnehmung. Am Beispiel Weimar: Böhlau, 1999, pp. 40, 46, 50, 303. Museologie als Erkenntnissystem und der Grazer Altstadt. Curiositas. Jahrbuch für 111 Siehe dazu auch BIEDERMANN, Handlungsanweisung. Jahresbericht/ Museologie und museale Quellenkunde, 2012–2013, Bernadette. Exploring the meaning of objects Landesmuseum Joanneum, 1991, Graz, 1992, no. 12-13, pp. 129–148. and communicating museality as challenge for no. 22, pp. 9–27. 105 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Der Begriff der museological methodology. Curiositas. Jahrbuch 100 Original: „Bemühung, den gesellschaftlichen Museologie. Muzeologické sešity, supplementum 1. für Museologie und museale Quellenkunde, 2014– Umfang des Phänomens Museum“ einzuarbeiten. Einführung in die Museologie, 1971, p. 37. 2015, no. 14-15, pp. 15–26.
58 2016 /05 /02
seology uses methods of empirical such a project. A compilation of To date, the system of knowledge social research. Unfortunately, only museological terms with a logical developed by Stránský has not been a few epistemological works on the deduction shown by their relation sufficiently acknowledged or re- development and expansion of mu- to museality was to be present- flected upon in scientific discourse, seological methods are published ed for the first time in Friedrich meaning that it is denied that this that refer to Stránský and Wai- Waidacher’s first edition of the system of museology has the quality dacher.112 “Handbuch” in 1993 in the form of an academic discipline: “However, of a “Glossary”. For the quality of the likening of museology to a sci- Terminology museality, he created the German ence – even under development – has term “museal”, thus communicat- slowly been abandoned in so far as In terms of the development of mu- ing the special quality developed neither its object of study, nor its seology as an academic discipline, by Stránský.115 He also established methods, truly correspond to the Stránský also sought to develop the term “Nouophors”, naming epistemological criteria of a specific a museological terminology. He de- musealia as carriers of sense and scientific approach.”119 scribed the publication of a diction- meaning.116 With this concept, he ary of museum-related terms, which additionally wanted to distance the Without providing an alternative was published in Moscow in 1974,113 museological approach from gener- proposal for a museology system – as a “pioneering” act. He therefore al conceptions of defining objects as which Stránský had required – mu- supported the publication of a “Dic- carriers of signs, which were named seology is conceded to be a museum tionnaire museologicum”, the first “Semiophors”.117 philosophy with a metatheoretical edition of which was published in approach that has two tasks to ful- 1978.114 The fact that a common terminol- fil: (1)“ it serves as metatheory for ogy for museological research is the science of intuitive concrete docu- Stránský probably thought of a mu- of international importance is also mentation, (2) it provides regulating seological lexicon, which was to list reflected in the publication by Des- ethics for all institutions responsible all terms used in relation to musea vallées and Mairesse with the title for managing the intuitive concrete lity. However, because this termi- “Key Concepts of Museology”.118 It documentary function.”120 nology had to be developed for the defines terms used in this context first time, the concept of “Diction- as a current state of research. Sev- Without the required logical falsifi- arium museologicum” presents just eral terms are not only provided cation of Stránský’s theories, which a collection of those terms which in English, but are also translated would be necessary in recourse to were used in connection with (prac- into five other languages (French, K. Popper, the assumption that the tical) museum work at that time. German, Italian, Spanish and Por- knowledge system developed by The terms were also translated into tuguese). Unfortunately, this work Stránský does not meet the require- different languages. does not include a time-independ- ments of an academic discipline ent particular object of knowledge, remain an unverified thesis. Fur- A meeting on the planned pub- which is why theoretical and practi- thermore, an alternative knowledge lication of “Dictionnaire museo- cal concepts are mixed together. system for exploring the temporal logicum” was the reason for the phenomenon of collecting, preserv- first encounter between Stránský ing, investigating and exhibiting ob- and Waidacher in 1980 where jects as witnesses of specific social 115 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Handbuch der both recognized the complexity of Allgemeinen Museologie. 3rd ed. Wien, Köln, realities has not yet been submitted. Weimar: Böhlau, 1999, p. 708: “museal refers to the quality of museality” („museal: auf die 112 BIEDERMANN, Bernadette. Exploring the Qualität der Musealität bezogen“). meaning of objects and communicating museality as challenge for museological methodology. 116 WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Sachen und Wörter Curiositas. Jahrbuch für Museologie und museale oder von der Mühe, Erinnerung zu bewahren. Quellenkunde, 2014–2015, no. 14-15, pp. 15–26; In GELDNER, Georg (ed.). Der Milde Knabe oder BIEDERMANN, Bernadette and Nikolaus die Natur eines Berufenen. Ein wissenschaftlicher 119 DESVALLÈES, Andre and Francois MAIRESSE REISINGER. Die Stadt als Lebensraum und Ausblick, Oskar Pausch zum Eintritt in den (eds.). Key Concepts of Museology [online]. Paris: museale Inszenierung zwischen Erinnerung, Ruhestand gewidmet. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau, Armand Collin, 2010, p. 55 [cit. 2016-09-06]. Assoziation und Wahrnehmung. Am Beispiel p. 20. Available from www:
59 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
Training programmes In 1994, Friedrich Waidacher es- tioned each other in relevant pub- tablished a modular training pro- lications, but also in their personal During his career and his work at gramme for general museology correspondence. In the preface of the Department of Museology at at the Institute of History at the his handbook, Waidacher express- Masaryk University in Brno, where University of Graz (“Karl-Fran- es his special thanks to Stránský: he habilitated in 1993, Stránský zens-Universität Graz”), consisting “I express my special thanks and was dedicated to the education of of historical, theoretical and ap- send a respectful greeting to Zbyněk students. In several training oppor- plied museology. He was eventually Z. Stránský, the pioneer of contem- tunities he recognized a specific appointed Honorary Professor of porary museology. Without his cou- pragmatism, lacking a theoretical Museology in 2003. This represents rageous and tireless decades of basic basis and reference to museality the first award of venia docendi at research our knowledge would be as as well as a system of knowledge an Austrian university. Today these blurred as it was a generation ago. of museology. This naturally led to courses are still held in the context The museum world has him to thank “unilateral and disorganized train- of a combination of subjects called for crucial contributions to serious ing programmes.”121 This, he noted, “Cultural Management – Applied discussions of the scientific basis of despite the wording of the “ICOM Cultural Studies” and in the perma- the museum. His concepts and theo- Basic Syllabus for Professional Mu- nent curriculum of the history de- ries have already become part of the seum Training”. In 2000, the “ICOM partment at the University of Graz.125 vocabulary and instruments of muse- Curricula Guidelines for Museum After Stránský published his article ology. This manual makes extensive Professional Development”122 were on training programmes, some use of the results of his work in its published, providing guidelines for more courses were started, taking theoretical part.”129 practical training and neglecting place at Leipzig University of Ap- the theoretical study of the object of plied Sciences126 and at Julius Maxi- Stránský received this compliment knowledge of museology. milian University in Würzburg.127 for his review of “museology as a communist science” 130 in 2001. However, the “UNESCO Internation- Personal matters He saw his theoretical considera- al Summer School of Museology” tions confirmed in publications by at Masaryk University, which has After meeting for the first time at Waidacher and Maroević. Moreo- offered courses in museology since a conference in 1980, Stránský and ver, Waidacher further showed his 1987, put metamuseology at the Waidacher developed a particularly appreciation in a piece he wrote to centre of the curriculum and inte- deep, friendly relationship. They commemorate Stránský’s birthday grated historical, theoretical and shared their “abhorrence of any in the journal “Museum aktuell”.131 applied museology as a system.123 ideology, contempt for lazy thinking He discusses the academic career Stránský placed particular impor- (“ratio pigra”), a deep connection to of the recipient and particularly tance on the point that “museum music and their delight in humour.”128 highlights his research and teaching staff, therefore, perceive present life, activities at Masaryk University in pursue its problems and take their Their mutual professional and per- Brno, where he founded the “Inter- own dedicated position.”124 sonal appreciation is revealed not national Summer School of Museol- only in the way in which they men- ogy” (ISSOM) in 1986. 121 Original: „einseitigen und systemlosen Ausbildungsprogrammen“, see STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museum studies auf der Suche nach sich selbst. 125 See homepage Studienschwerpunkt 129 Original: „Mein besonderer Dank und Museum aktuell, April 2005, p. 34. Kulturmanagement. In Karl-Franzens-Universität respektvoller Gruß gilt Zbyněk Z. Stránský, Graz [online]. [cit. 2016-09-06]. Available from 122 See homepage ICOM Curricula Guidelines for dem Pionier der zeitgemäßen Museologie. Ohne www:
60 2016 /05 /02
In return, Stránský dedicated a pa- mological and theoretical issues of tum 1. Einführung in die Museologie, 1971, per consisting of six “variations” museology. This system is argued pp. 14–39. to the scientific achievements of for consistently and stringently, as STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Die Museen im Osten Friedrich Waidacher.132 Stránský shown, for example, by the deve im Umbruch – Märkte und Kontexte. Mu- particularly highlighted the deve lopment of Stránský’s fundamental seum aktuell, Mai 2005, pp. 6–10. ISSN lopment of the system of museolo- ideas by F. Waidacher, who extend- 1433-3848. gy, the extension of the definition of ed the system, created appropriate STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Die theoretischen museology, the contribution to the terminology and presented an inter- Grundlagen der Museologie als Wissen- formation of a museological termi- national state of research, whereby schaft. In AUER, Hermann. Museologie: nology, the activity in professional all the sections are always based on Neue Wege – Neue Ziele. München: Saur, organizations and the permanent the timeless object of knowledge. 1989, pp. 38–47. ISBN 3-598-10809-5. defence of museology as a scientific STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Einleitung zur Vit- discipline. Waidacher gave lectures Their unconditional and rigorous rinologie. Museum aktuell, Dezember at the “UNESCO International Sum- arguments in favour of the timeless 1996, pp. 420–425. ISSN 1433-3848. mer School in Brno” as well as at museum appearance are expressed STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Grundlagen der the universities in Vienna, Basel, in a special relationship between Allgemeinen Museologie. Muzeologické Zagreb and Karlsruhe. He also man and his environment, and sešity, supplementum 1. Einführung in die established the above-mentioned make the two museologists so ex- Museologie, 1971, pp. 40–66. three-part series of lectures on mu- traordinary. This relationship is STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Ist Museologie eine seology at the Institute of History at shown by collecting, preserving, in- kommunistische Wissenschaft? Museum the University of Graz. vestigating and exhibiting museum aktuell, April 2001, pp. 2758–2761. ISSN objects. The object of knowledge 1433-3848. The mutual esteem that Stránský and the related dynamic structure STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie and Waidacher felt for each other of museology have not been fal- oder: Museologie im Metatext und Kon- is also evident from their personal sified logically, but are rather re- text. Teil 1. Museum aktuell, Mai/Juni correspondence. They sent each flected upon and further developed 2003, pp. 3974–3978. ISSN 1433-3848. other greeting cards and reprints at universities in Graz and Brno STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Metamuseologie. of their works and arranged private through conferences and lectures. Teil II. Modelle einer Gliederung der meetings. They “did not have to talk Museologie. Museum aktuell, Juli 2003, about museology” because “in any Undertaking a further basic study of pp. 4028–4030. ISSN 1433-3848. case they were of the same opinion.”133 the methods to explore and deepen STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Musealisierung und The obituary in the current issue of museology as a scientific discipline Paradigmenwechsel. Museum aktuell, “Museologica Brunensia”, in which would, however, contribute to fur- Mai/Juni 2001, pp. 2802–2806. ISSN Waidacher describes Stránský as ther strengthening the system. The 1433-3848. “irreplaceable”, also shows deep ap- now re-established Czech-Austrian STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museologie – akade- preciation. This too has to be seen museological relations between the mische Disziplin für die Museumspraxis. as a particular expression of mutual University of Graz and Masaryk Museum aktuell, März 1998, pp. 1048– respect because F. Waidacher closed University Brno could make a con- 1054. ISSN 1433-3848. his public “scriptorium” several tribution to this. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museologie als years ago. selbständige Wissenschaft. In FLÜGEL Katharina and Wolfgang ERNST (eds.). Conclusion BIBLIOGRAPHY: Museologie als Wissenschaft und Beruf in der modernen Welt. Weimar: Verlag The publications and the commu- Primary sources und Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaft, nication between Czech scientist 1995, pp. 11–29. ISBN 3-929742-56-X. Zbyněk Z. Stránský and Austri- Private archive of Prof. Dr. Friedrich Wai- STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museologie als Wis- an scientist Friedrich Waidacher dacher. senschaft. In Museologie in der Tschech- shows that they were able to create Interview with Friedrich Waidacher on 29th oslowakischen sozialistischen Republik. a system by working on the episte- August 2016, Graz. Berlin: Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Museumskunde, 1982, pp. 213–232. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Cyberraum und Mu- STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museologie: Mode 132 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Thema mit Variationen zu Friedrich Waidacher. Museum seumskultur. Museum aktuell, Februar oder tatsächliche Notwendigkeit? In aktuell, September 2004, pp. 9–13. 2007, pp. 20–24. ISSN 1433-3848. Jahresbericht/Landesmuseum Joanneum, 133 Original: Über Fachliches mussten die beiden STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Der Begriff der Mu 1982, Graz, 1983, no. 12, pp. 161–165. „nicht sprechen“, da sie „ohnedies einer Meinung waren“, Friedrich Waidacher, interviewed on seologie. Muzeologické sešity, supplemen- ISSN 0378-6862. 2016-08-29.
61 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museologische Ter- stand gewidmet. Wien, Köln, Weimar: GRAMMEL, Soren. Ausstellungsautoren- minologie. Neue Museumskunde, 1988, Böhlau, pp. 19–29. ISBN 3-205-98819-1. schaft. Die Konstruktion der auktorialen no. 1, pp. 12–17. ISSN 0028-3282. WAIDACHER, Friedrich. Vom redlichen Position des Kurators bei Harald Szee- STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museology as a Sci- Umgang mit Dingen. Sammlungsmanage- mann. Eine Mikroanalyse. Frankfurt am ence. Museologia, 1980, vol. XI, no. 15, ment im System musealer Aufgaben und Main: König, 2005. pp. 33–40. ISSN 0392-5528. Ziele. Mitteilungen und Berichte aus dem HANAK-LETTNER, Werner. Die Ausstellung STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Museum studies auf Institut für Museumskunde, 1998, vol. 8 als Drama. Wie das Museum aus dem der Suche nach sich selbst. Museum aktu- [online]. [cit. 2016-09-06]. Available Theater entstand. Bielefeld: Transcript, ell, April 2005, pp. 33–40. ISSN 1433- from www:
62 2016 /05 /02
logica Brunensia, 2014, no. 3, pp. 28–42. VIEREGG, Hildegard. Museumswissenschaf- BERNADETTE BIEDERMANN ISSN 1805-4722. ten. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, UTB, MÜLLER-STRATEN, Christian. The Contri- 2006. ISBN 978-3-8252-2823-1. Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Institut bution of Zbynek Z. Stransky to Museolo- WALZ, Markus (ed.). Handbuch Museum: für Geschichte, Universitätsmuseen, Graz‚ Österreich gy within the Frame of the Brno Museol- Geschichte, Aufgaben, Perspektiven. Stutt- [email protected] ogy School. Museum aktuell, Januar 2007, gart: J. B. Metzler, 2016. ISBN 978-3- pp. 19–22. ISSN 1433-3848. -476-02375-9. NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Muzeum a věda. Praha: Bernadette Biedermann started Národní muzeum, 1968. Internet to study History of art and Art management (Applied cultural NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Die Museologie als wis- studies) at the University of Graz senschaftliche Disziplin. In Museologische CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model [online]. in 1999. During her studies already Forschung in der ČSSR. Berlin: Institut für [cit. 2016-09-06]. Available from www: she mainly focused on the fields of Museumswesen, 1980, pp. 207–212.
63 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
prací o formách muzejní komuni- kace na příkladu textů k výstavám. Poté napsala doktorskou disertaci (2004–2007) pojednávající o his- torii sbírek Muzea kulturních dějin a užitého umění v rámci Landes- museum Joanneum (vyšlo v roce 2009). Tou dobou začala v tomto muzeu pracovat jako kurátorka. Věnovala se inventarizaci a teza- uraci sbírkových předmětů. Od zimního semestru 2010 přednáší na Univerzitě ve Štýrském Hradci. V rámci kombinovaného studia v oboru kulturního managementu a aplikované kulturologie přednáší teoretickou muzeologii. Kromě toho se také podílí na různých výzkumných projektech. Participu- je také na koordinaci digitalizace sbírek univerzitních muzeí na Univerzitě ve Štýrském Hradci. Její výzkumné a publikační aktivity se zaměřují hlavně na teoretickou muzeologii, formy muzejní prezen- tace a komunikace, standardy pro muzejní dokumentaci anebo rozvoj aplikované muzejní práce digi- tálními metodami v humanitních vědách.
64 2016 /05 /02
STUDIE/ARTICLES
REMARKS ON THE ROLE OF Z. Z. STRÁNSKÝ IN CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRICULUM
OF BRNO MUSEOLOGY DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-7
LENKA MRÁZOVÁ
ABSTRACT/ABSTRAKT: svědčí nejen o vlastním zápalu and documentation work. Thereby we Z. Z. Stránského pro obor muzeolo- created a system of knowledge, which It is beyond doubt that besides Jan gie, ale zejména o důkladnosti, s ja- eventually became the expression of Jelínek, Zbyněk Z. Stránský was kou přistupoval k tvorbě kurikula our conception of museology and de another key person decisive for the ve vztahu k jeho funkčnosti a s dů- termined the overall character of our development of Brno museology. razem na neustálou aktualizaci Chair as well.” His theoretical system still today nastaveného vzdělávacího systému. Jan Jelínek1 forms the basic pillar of the cur- Historie brněnské muzeologie je již riculum of professional museology poměrně dobře zpracována, zámě- studies in Brno. The analysis of rem předkládaného textu tak pri- The opening citation foreshadows gradual forming of museology stu márně není doplnit faktografickou very well the way, which from the dies at the Brno university attests linii jako spíše upozornit na zásadní point of view of the authors of the not only to Z. Z. Stránský’s enthu- dílčí momenty k formování jejího first curriculum of Brno museology siasm for the museological field, výukového schématu v přístupu had to be passed in the course of but mainly to thoroughness with Z. Z. Stránského. formation of the Chair as an origi- which he approached the creation nal scientific department. Our main of curriculum with regard to its KEYWORDS/KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA: aim is to draw attention to this functionality, laying the focus on aspect of professional work of both continuous updating of the educa- Z. Z. Stránský – curriculum – museo of the founding personalities and tional system established. The his- logy – museum work remember some moments in the tory of Brno museology is already Z. Z. Stránský – kurikulum – muzeo personal and philosophic approach quite well-documented, so that the logie – muzejnictví by Zbyněk Z. Stránský, which were primary purpose of this text is not decisive for the appearance of the to supplement the factual account Brno museology studies.2 but rather turn attention to indivi “Our Chair was established after 1 JELÍNEK, Jan. Předmluva. In STRÁNSKÝ, Z. dual crucial moments in the course 1962 and it had to overcome many Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: Filosofická fakulta of formation of its educational sys- obstacles of its own crystallisation University Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Brně, 1972, tem as anchored in the approach by and programme maturation process. p. 3. Z. Z. Stránský. We had no possibility to adopt expe 2 The Brno museological department started its activity in 1963, initially as an external chair riences or follow an already verified of the then Jan Evangelista Purkyně University Poznámky k roli osobnosti organisational and educational mod (present-day Masaryk University) working at the Moravian Museum. Postgraduate studies were Z. Z. Stránského ve vývoji obsa- el. We were among the first ones in opened in the academic year 1965/1966. This hové koncepce brněnské muzeo- Europe and had therefore to search external chair was then affiliated to the Chair of logie for our own, original way. This was Prehistory in the early 1970s. Subsequently, in 1977, after emergence of the Chair of Archaeo demanding both from a pedagogical logy and Museology, predecessor of what is now Není pochyb o tom, že Zbyněk and from a professional point of view, the Department of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty of Arts, it became an internal university Z. Stránský byl, vedle Jana Jelín- because museology itself was until department. Within the scope of the Department ka, klíčovou a ve vývoji brněnské then a too insufficiently funded and of Archaeology and Museology currently works a separate Centre of Museology, whose integral muzeologie určující osobností. Jeho constituted discipline to be able to part also became the UNESCO Chair of Museolo- teoretický systém dodnes tvoří serve in this condition as an immedi gy and World Heritage, which was founded with základní pilíř obsahu odborného ate base for teaching. This is why the Stránský’s support in 1994. In the 1990s, together with social changes and new legal regulations of studia muzeologie v Brně. Analýza realisation of the educational pro university studies, postgraduate studies gradually postupného formování muzeologic- gramme was only possible on the ba changed into specialization studies and the mu- seology studies were subsequently extended by kých studií na brněnské univerzitě sis of an intensive scientific, research full-time and combined modes of study.
65 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
Theory vs. empiricism museologists and museum profes- the isolation in the sense of possible sionals for the purpose of further knowledge of topical trends and In the introduction to the first theoretical and creative work in the questions solved in association with edition of his 1972 textbook In given field. The symposium was development of museological theory troduction to Museology, Zbyněk conceived as a meeting targeted at abroad.5 Z. Z. Stránský continued Z. Stránský speaks about a wider particular goals and it was expected to pay attention to the discussion context of emergence of the Chair to yield clear strategic knowledge and defence of scientific character and emphasizes that its founding is which would help to support fur- of the discipline, and the need to part of the experienced contempo- ther development of the discipline, clarify and explain the relationship raneous necessity to pass over from as it is evidenced by a thorough between what he termed museology mere practical conception of mu- preparation of source materials sub- and museography accompanied al- seum work to consolidation of the mitted to the attendants registered. most all of the conceptual texts by discipline on the basis of a scientific Among them was “introductory Stránský dealing with the problems theory.3 Stránský was very sensitive material, which was intended for of museology. towards this polemic between the basic orientation. It draw attention theoretical and the purely empirical to relevant literature, foreshadowed Museology in relation to the oth- approach to the discipline and his the possible solution and, above er disciplines argumentation supporting the scien- all, defined the two fundamental tific view of the world and museum questions of the symposium: A) The The discussion about museology work thus represented the begin- essence of museology and B) Museol as not only a practical, but rightly ning of formation of the curriculum ogy as a field of university studies.”4 also a theoretical field, is also as- of Brno museology as well as the The openness towards a broader sociated with Stránský’s patiently origins of Stránský’s theoretical interdisciplinary discussion about held polemic about the relation- system of museology. The founding the formation of museology as an ship of museology to the other of the Chair fluently followed previ- independent discipline, as well as disciplines, which are present in ous theoretical activity in the field the effort in mutual inspiration and the museum work by their em- of museology, but the discipline logical interconnection, are also ev- ployment in museum collections. itself needed to obtain a more stable idenced by invitation of colleagues The fact that museology was until foundations both in academic and from another disciplines – archival then insufficiently anchored in in museum milieu. The discussion research and library science, which the field of science and education about recognition of the discipline are closely linked with museology and that its significance has been accompanied the whole origins and which underwent successfully underrated among the museum of museology tuition in Brno and an analogous theoretical develop- workers was usually explained by Z. Z. Stránský and his co-workers ment of the discipline as well as an insufficient understanding of the strived to cope actively with this sit- constitution of university educa- content of the discipline. Stránský uation. So it came that Brno hosted tion. The discussion and the effort in his texts mainly drew attention the first museological symposium to capture the attention of a wider to erroneous assumptions about in 1965, which offered a platform professional museum community competences which are necessary for professional discussion about were successful and, as expected, to carry out professional muse- the concept of museology as an in- very stimulating for further work um work. Museum workers were dependent discipline versus a set of on the development of museology often top experts in their own “service” techniques for individual as an independent discipline. The disciplines, but as regards the pro- disciplines, which find employment papers presented reflected the con- fessional museum competences, in museums with regard to content frontation of contradictory points of their knowledge and methodology of the collections treated. The aim view, terminological and methodi acquired during university studies of the symposium was not only to cal ambiguity, and pointed to the did not made them prepared for make the widest possible communi- lack of specialists who are able to such a work. Professional museum ty of museum workers familiar with solve the problems in wider gno- competences were then acquired the problems of museology and seological, methodological, philo- gradually, non-systematically and demonstrate the topicality of these sophical and other aspects, or to the only in the empirical sphere. This problems in association with con- isolation of Czech museum milieu obtaining of experience directed tacts established abroad, but also from current development in the towards a truly competent museum to create a community of engaged world. Herewith we mainly mean worker was usually also determined
4 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník materiálů 5 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník materiálů 3 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: prvého muzeologického sympozia Brno – 1965. prvého muzeologického sympozia Brno – 1965. Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evangelisty Brno: Moravské muzeum v Brně, 1966, p. 3. Brno: Moravské muzeum v Brně, 1966, p. 4. Purkyně v Brně, 1972, p. 4.
66 2016 /05 /02
by personal interest of the one or a superstructure), both museologists Stránský’s original professional another individual. Systematic mu- cooperated in mutual respect, striv- orientation and multi-spectral seum work, according to Stránský, ing to shift the development in the education (philosophy, history, was also hindered by a mix of pro- field of museology forward through musicology) shielded the emerging fessional scientific systems applied the medium of university educa- theory from the point of view of the to museum practice without any tion. The first curriculum of Brno range of knowledge and academic unifying museological base.6 This museology, even though it was an erudition; deep knowledge of the polemic about the relationship of effective compilation of opinions by development of museums, muse- museology to the other disciplines both of the above personalities, re- um work and museological ideas employed in museums, however, is flects to a considerable extent sche- as well as a complex knowledge not only related to the defence of matically the original system by of available museological litera- necessity of theoretical perception Neustupný: the curriculum is divid- ture enabled Stránský to analyse of museum processes, but is also ed into general museology, which the situation in the discipline and tightly associated with the original includes topics like the essence of name the so far unsolved theoreti- form of the curriculum of Brno mu- museums, museology, history of cal problems. In his textbooks and seology. During elaboration of the documentation theory, thesauration other introductory texts, as well curriculum it was necessary to take and presentation or international as in his inaugural dissertation, into account that the museological and national museum organisations; Zbyněk Z. Stránský refers very con- theory in Czech milieu is rather and into special museologies, that ceptually to selected milestones in regarded as museography. Maybe is, museology of geological sciences, the course of history of museums; the most distinctive advocate of this museology of biological sciences, the connection between philosoph- approach, the Prague archaeologist museology of prehistory, museology ical thinking and the knowledge of and museologist Jiří Neustupný, of history, museology of ethnogra- history of the discipline together regarded the museum institution phy, museology of history of art, with the ability to extract just those itself as the focal point of interest and museology of literary science critical moments of museological of museological theory. For him, and musicology (academic year thinking, which shifted the disci- museology was not a science but 1964/1965).8 pline and the needs of museology theory and technique derived from teaching gradually closer towards professional scientific work in mu- Curriculum as a result of scienti scientific conception, formed the seums, that is, from the so-called fic organisation of the discipline background of Stránský’s theory. He special museologies of individual also explored the study require- disciplines employed in museums. A moment which formed in the ments in the opinions by J. Graesse General museology, according to most significant way the teaching or J. Leisching as well as in the Neustupný, directly emerges from scheme of Brno museology is repre- orientation of École du Louvre, and generalisation of the knowledge sented by Stránský’s conviction that continued the analysis further until of these individual disciplines and education in the field of museology the present by parallel mentions of from finding a sort of common base must be based on its scientific or- international and Czech develop in this knowledge.7 Despite an evi- ganisation. His work on the system ment.9 Thereafter he refined his dent controversy between the opini of Brno museology tuition therefore opinion on the form of museology ons by Neustupný and Stránský (on cannot be separated from the work teaching by a critical comparative the one hand museology as a gene on his own concept of the system analysis of the content of con- ralisation of special museologies, of museology as a science. In this temporaneous forms of museum and on the other hand museology connection we can follow up several educational programmes in the as a specific, entirely independent another very important formative effort to find the optimal form of approach to perception of reality, factors. university studies.10 Education in which should be the basic foun- any discipline, according to Strán- dations on which the systems of ský, is only meaningful when it individual disciplines are resting as brings something own and original
9 E. g. STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. 8 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník materiálů 6 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: Brno: Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evange- prvého muzeologického sympozia Brno – 1965. Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evangelisty listy Purkyně v Brně, 1972 or STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Brno: Moravské muzeum v Brně, 1966, p. 16, see Purkyně v Brně, 1972, p. 6, see also STRÁNSKÝ, Z. De Museologia. Metateoretická studie k základům also MRÁZOVÁ, Lenka and Lucie JAGOŠOVÁ. Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: Filosofická fakulta muzeologie jako vědy. Brno: Masarykova univer- Obsahové proměny kurikula brněnské muzeologie University Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Brně, 1979, zita, Filozofická fakulta, 1992, 300 p. Inaugural v letech 1964–2014. Museologica Brunensia, 2014, pp. 7–8 etc. dissertation, etc. no. 3, p. 32, tab. 1, further e.g. SCHNEIDER, Ev- 7 NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Otázky dnešního musejnictví. žen. Specifické vzdělávání muzejních pracovníků 10 In detail see e. g. STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do Příspěvky k obecné a speciální museologii. Praha: a jeho usoustavnění v ČSR. Muzeologické sešity: muzeologie. Brno: Filosofická fakulta University Orbis, 1950, p. 9. Supplementum 3, 1985, pp. 85–126. Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Brně, 1972 etc.
67 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
and enriches our knowledge both Both tasks are interconnected and determination of theory and prac- practically and theoretically.11 The determine one another.”14 The urge tice, the practical viability of gradu effort to find reflection of this belief to find an own specific range of ates in the museum milieu was in in contemporaneous educational knowledge as well as adequate no way harmed. When we turn back courses in museology made Strán- forms and methods of museology to the content of the then Brno edu- ský define the problematic aspects studies15 connected with develop- cational system (1970s and 1980s), of museology tuition. Most deter- mental and methodological level it reflected the development of mining in this regard is according of contemporary science became theory by changes in the structure to him again the encounter of two the focal point of work of the Brno and strengthening of the theoretical approaches to formation of the edu- Chair, and Zbyněk Z. Stránský per- part. The curriculum was divided cational programme, that is, on the ceived this specific range of knowl- into A. profile courses(museological one hand the effort to develop the edge as an indispensable qualitative part) and B. professional specialisa teaching at the level of theoretical prerequisite of museum work.16 Its tion courses (museographic part). application, on the other hand the formulation as well as the build-up Profile courses were subdivided into learning of methods and techniques of the curriculum of Brno museolo- two blocks – a) courses in general of museum work. Stránský referred gy were characterised by Stránský’s basics focused on general context of to the persisting fear that the pref- meticulous work with termi- scientific work and cultural policy erence of theory would separate nology, which gradually resulted and the position of museums in this the teaching from practice and in elaboration of professional me- system, and b) courses in general diminish therewith its benefits for ta-language. museology which included the in- museum work, and he regarded this troduction to museology, history of fear as misapprehension of the dif- Gradual integration of Stránský’s museums, introduction to museog- ference between the museological theory into the educational system raphy, as well as courses like The- and museographic orientation of the of Brno museology can be followed ory of museum selection, Theory approach to museum reality.12 He up in continuous changes of the of museum thesauration or Theory noticed very well that the emergen- curriculum.17 The educational of museum communication. The cy of teaching “showcaseology” is scheme was thoroughly divided professional specialisation courses a frequent argument against muse- into the museological part and the were then subdivided thematically ology tuition in universities and he museographic part. In relation to into three blocks – a) Special issues pointed out that the existing state of the original system, whose focal of general museology, b) Special mu museology education at that time, point rested in special museologies, seology and c) Related disciplines. which rather worked with practi- these two parts gradually became Within the block of special muse- cal approach where the content of balanced. Thanks to presence ology, the learners chose lectures teaching is as good as identical with of a unifying theoretical base in according to their professional the profile of museum activity and many courses of the museographic orientation in disciplines employed is focused on providing a basic ori- part we can gradually even no- in museums (for example geology, entation in museum activities,13 is tice a slight prevalence of theory. botany, history, etc.) and within the to a certain extent also determined However, in accordance with the block of courses in related disci- by the present state of the theore above-mentioned opinion by Strán- plines they paid attention to disci- tical basis of museology. According ský about the necessity of a mutual plines which are interacting some- to Stránský “The formation of educa how with museology (for example tional programmes is an equally de 14 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: the above-mentioned archival re- manding process as the constitution Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evangelisty search and library science, but also Purkyně v Brně, 1972, p. 22. of museology as a possible discipline. informatics, statistics, pedagogical 15 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evangelisty psychology or sociological research, Purkyně v Brně, 1972, p. 22. 11 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: etc.). The courses in special issues Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evangelisty 16 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: of general museology, even though Purkyně v Brně, 1972, p. 15. Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Brně, 1972, p. 25. dedicated to particular procedures 12 STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evangelisty 17 E. g. PERNIČKA, Radko Martin. Proces realiza- of museum work (such as, for exam- Purkyně v Brně, 1972, p. 21. ce a zkvalitňování postgraduálního studia muze- ple, the courses Organisation and ologie na filozofické fakultě UJEP v Brně. Muzeo 13 The educational programme, which was elabo- logické sešity: Supplementum 3, 1985, pp. 71–84 or management of museums, Basics of rated in the 1960s by the newly established Inter- SCHNEIDER, Evžen. Specifické vzdělávání muzej- museum conservation, Description national Committee for the Training of Personnel ních pracovníků a jeho usoustavnění v ČSR. Muze of collection items...but also Muse- (ICTOP) at ICOM, also was blamed by Z. Z. Strán- ologické sešity: Supplementum 3, 1985, pp. 85–126, ský for its practical orientation and absence of the- further also MRÁZOVÁ, Lenka and Lucie JAGOŠO- um as an institution, Visual princi- ory, see e. g. STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. VÁ. Obsahové proměny kurikula brněnské muzeo- ples of museum presentation, etc.), Brno: Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evange- logie v letech 1964–2014. Museologica Brunensia, listy Purkyně v Brně, 1972, pp. 13 and 21. 2014, no. 3, pp. 28–42. exhibited at the same time a certain
68 2016 /05 /02
degree of generalisation in a speci ský’s theoretical system of museolo- uisite of an active practising of the fic perception of the world through gy and his concept of studies in this museum profession. the medium of Stránský’s museolo field still form the base of museolo- gical theory.18 gy studies in Brno.
In the 1990s, when the previously Evaluation and discussion The primary activity which reflect- established postgraduate museolo- ed the current state of the disci- gy studies were supplemented by The conceptual and systematic pline, mainly in the then Czech- the newly opened programme of approach by Z. Z. Stránský and oslovakia, and at the same time full-time studies in this field at the his colleagues to the profile of cur- searched for impulses to an optimal Masaryk University, the structure riculum of Brno museology was setup of the system of museology of teaching already bears a clear also reflected in regular evaluation tuition in the Brno university, was imprint of Stránský’s system. When activities and in permanent effort the above-mentioned first muse- we take into consideration only the to spark off professional discussion ological symposium organised by main study areas, we can find in reflecting the study results, opin- the Chair in March 1965. The en- the structure of postgraduate stud- ions by participating pedagogues, gagement and interest in searching ies following categories of cours- the needs of students for practice for a wider and conceptual solution es: A. Extended basics of sciences, (until the 1990s the follow-up post- were expressed by the all-European B. Metamuseology, C. Historical graduate education of museum meeting of teachers in museolo- museology, D. Social museology and workers) and, last but not least, the gy studies in the autumn of 1967, E. General museology, which is sub- integration of contemporaneous which was organised by the Chair divided into courses in a) theoretical current development in the field in Brno under the auspices of ICOM. museology and b) applied museology of museology, museums and mu- The meeting followed up the effort (museography), as well as F. Par seology teaching. The study itself to solve the problems of museology ticular museologies and G. Accesso and the proposals for its partial tuition, which was presented in the ries. The full-time studies follow modifications were reflected con- 1965 ICOM general conference in more or less this arrangement, only tinuously and the study, mainly at New York and gave an impulse to the names of individual study are- the beginning, has been modified establish the International Commit- as are changed, that is A. General on the basis of primary evalua- tee for the Training of Personnel basics, B. Metamuseology, C. Muse tion by pedagogues and students.20 at ICOM. This Committee was con- ology subdivided into the courses However, this internal university stituted in the next ICOM general in a) historical museology, b) social evaluation was not the only ac- conference in 1968 with the aim to museology and c) theoretical muse tivity of the Chair reflecting the support and pursue museology tui- ology, D. Museography, E. Special Brno studies and the museology tion at universities and other forms museology, F. Related disciplines and education in general. Zbyněk Z. of education of museum workers as G. Tutorials.19 The concept of studies Stránský with his co-workers were a prerequisite of professional deve created in the 1990s represented very well aware of the necessity to lopment of the museum work. The the last modification of the museo- interlink the museology tuition at Chair impersonated its share in the logical teaching scheme of the Brno universities with the widest possible activities of this Committee through museology school, in which Zbyněk professional discussion among sci- the medium of Jan Jelínek21 and its Z. Stránský participated before his entific workers, the importance of active participation declared an evi- departure from the Brno university. stimulating their interest, activity dent effort of the Chair members to Despite some partial updates, Strán- and willingness to participate. They set the system of museology tuition were also aware of the necessity to in Brno into the context of general 18 Cited after MRÁZOVÁ, Lenka and Lucie JAGO- share the knowledge and experience international development and con- ŠOVÁ. Obsahové proměny kurikula brněnské mu- on an international scale, because tribute with own professional activ- zeologie v letech 1964–2014. Museologica Brunen sia, 2014, no. 3, p. 33, tab 2. See also PERNIČKA, only a wider professional discussion ity actively to the conceptualisation Radko Martin. Proces realizace a zkvalitňování can help to win general recognition of museological education. Besides postgraduálního studia muzeologie na filozofické fakultě UJEP v Brně. Muzeologické sešity: Supple of museology studies as a prereq- these international activities of the mentum 3, 1985, pp. 71–72 or SCHNEIDER, Evžen. Chair in forming the profile of the Specifické vzdělávání muzejních pracovníků general optimal scope of museolo a jeho usoustavnění v ČSR. Muzeologické sešity: Supplementum 3, 1985, pp. 90–91. gical education, it is possible to fol- 19 Cited after MRÁZOVÁ, Lenka and Lucie low up another continuous internal JAGOŠOVÁ. Obsahové proměny kurikula brněn- 20 See e. g. MRÁZOVÁ, Lenka and Lucie JAGOŠO- ské muzeologie v letech 1964–2014. Museologica VÁ. Obsahové proměny kurikula brněnské muzeo- 21 E. g. STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brunensia, 2014, no. 3, p. 33, tab. 5, in this text it logie v letech 1964–2014. Museologica Brunensia, Brno: Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evange- is possible to find a detailed comparison of educa- 2014, no. 3, p. 32. listy Purkyně v Brně, 1972, pp. 13–14 etc. tional programmes in individual time periods.
69 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
evaluation activities of the Chair gogues.24 The interest in opinions of Conclusion associated with a wider discussion the other participants in museology and subsequent modifications of the teaching, including students, and Zbyněk Z. Stránský, as one of the system of Brno museology studies. the openness towards discussion key personalities in the Brno muse- “The transfer under the auspices of were successful activators of muse- ology school, left an indelible trace the university is also associated with ologists and museum workers who in development of its educational other reflection of the curriculum, declared their interest in the disci- scheme. His professional opinions, which was discussed in a meeting of pline and willingness to participate interdisciplinary overlap, interna- all pedagogues in postgraduate muse in the development of the discipline tional contacts as well as the ability ology studies organised on 30 March and the study itself, which is also to work systematically with topical 1977.22 The aim of this meeting was attested by the organising of pro- trends significantly modelled not the assessment of previous develop fessional museological seminars for only the external form of this study, ment of museological education, the graduates and students since the but mainly its content. The initial effort to find possibilities of how to 1980s. These seminars, requested resolution, which was made by the publish study texts, and above all by graduates from the Brno Chair, team preparing the constitution of a discussion about possible proposals already were beyond the scope of the Chair, that is, the creation of an and recommendations for potential normal tuition and were targeted at own scientific system of knowledge modifications of the curriculum. mediation and processing of topical which the curriculum of Brno muse- [...] Another modification of the trends and discussions on the de- ology should have followed up and curriculum of postgraduate museol velopment of museological theory which should have been intercon- ogy studies, based on reflection and and practice.25 We mention these nected with a wider museological evaluation of previous experiences in seminars intentionally among the and museum community as well accordance with present general de discussion and evaluation activities, as with topical development in the velopment of museological education, because they reflected the inter- discipline on an international scale, was put into practice after a meeting est of graduates in a continuous was fulfilled. The path to this own of external pedagogues and coop supplementing of knowledge, and system represented a sequence of erating institutions on 12 February their openness towards students of very concrete and systematic steps, 1981.”23 The meeting retrospec- Brno museology improved at the which gradually profiled the study tively assessed the past three runs same time the quality of museology in a unique way. At the beginning of postgraduate museology studies tuition. All the above-mentioned was not only the conviction of with regard to fluent operation of activities indisputably helped to founding personalities of the dis- teaching and study achievements of maintain and enhance the quality cipline at the Brno university that graduates, and above all reflected of museology studies at the Brno this study is necessary, but also in a wide discussion the function- university and they give evidence their vision of formation of a theo- ality and contentual concept of the that the form of studies has been retical base of museology and the 6th and 7th run based on written created very thoughtfully, method- awareness of wider overlaps of the comments by participating peda- ically and systematically, not only discipline into the museum work. with regard to own professional sci- When we sum up the moments, entific results, but under purposeful which appear in the works by Zby- 22 Cf. Archive of DAM, Centre of Museology (De- and active participation of other něk Z. Stránský in association with partment of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty experts and museum professionals, the conception of museology studies of Arts, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic) (unsystematized), folder Studium muzeologie putting emphasis on international in Brno, we will get 1) a patient po- (obecně) – evaluace, osnovy přednášek, studijní development. lemic between theoretical and pure- plány, subfolder Evaluace, vědecká činnost pra- ly empirical approach to the disci- covníků katedry muzeologie. Úpravy studijního plánu postgraduálního studia muzeologie (with an pline, and the related 2) delimita- accompanying letter from 7. 7. 1977). tion of museology towards the other 24 MRÁZOVÁ, Lenka and Lucie JAGOŠOVÁ. 23 See Archive of DAM, Centre of Museology (De- Obsahové proměny kurikula brněnské muzeologie disciplines engaged in museum partment of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty v letech 1964–2014. Museologica Brunensia, 2014, of Arts, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic) institutions, as well as a justified no. 3, pp. 32–33. (unsystematized), folder Dohody 94/95, výkazy + conviction that 3) museological ed- mix, subfolder Organizace a učitelé postgraduální- 25 For more details on these seminars, whose ho studia muzeologie, Zasedání učitelů PSM 12. 2. tradition continued in the form of cooperation be- ucation must be based on scientific 1981. Cf. Archive of DAM, Centre of Museology (De- tween the Centre of Museology of the Department organisation of this discipline and, partment of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty of Archaeology and Museology at the Masaryk last but not least, a continuous and of Arts, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic) University, Museological Commission of the Czech (unsystematized), subfolder Muzeologický seminář Association of Museums and Galleries, and the repeated 4) evaluation of the estab- Cikháj 1983. Vývoj výukového programu postgra- Masaryk Museum in Hodonín, see e. g. MRÁZOVÁ, lished system of tuition connected duálního studia muzeologie (podklad)/ Podklado- Lenka and Lucie JAGOŠOVÁ. Obsahové proměny vý materiál pro muzeologický seminář v Cikháji kurikula brněnské muzeologie v letech 1964–2014. with activation of a wider museum ve dnech 2.–5. V. 1983/. Museologica Brunensia, 2014, no. 3.
70 2016 /05 /02
community and an open discussion accomplishment of this mission is HANSLOK, Andreas. Museologie und Ar on both national and international evidenced not only by the number chivwissenschaft in der DDR: Abgrenzung scale. These conceptually signifi- of graduates from Brno museology,28 und Annäherung zweier Nachbarwissen cant steps were supported by oth- but also by constantly extending schaften. Marburg: Tectum, 2008. 208 p. er competences and professional activities of the Centre of Museolo- ISBN 978-3-8288-9581-2. overlaps of Stránský, which gave gy in Brno and the related UNESCO HOLMAN, Pavel. Cesty brněnské muzeo- him a wider insight and a detached Chair of Museology and World Her- logie. In Muzeologie na začátku třetího view of the contentual range of the itage, which are regarding the cur- tisíciletí/Museology at the Beginning discipline, and enabled him to ac- rently more than fifty-year-long tra- of the Third Milenium: sborník z mez complish the intent of establishing dition of museology at the Masaryk inárodní konference Teorie a praxe 2008. the scientific system of museology. University as wealth but also as Brno: Technické muzeum v Brně, 2009, It mainly involved his a) origi- responsibility and opportunity to pp. 198–202. ISBN 978-80-86413-61-7. nal professional orientation and develop further the legacy by Zby- HOLMAN, Pavel and Naďa URBÁNKOVÁ. multi-spectral education, b) deep něk Z. Stránský and his colleagues, Brněnská muzeologie v posledních deseti knowledge of previous development who were present at the birth of the letech. In Naše muzejnictví v minulém de of the history of museums, museum then Chair of Museology. setiletí čili Muzejníkovo soužití s múzami, work and museological thoughts, úředníky i zedníky: sborník přednášek ze c) the knowledge of existing museo- semináře 21.–22. června 2001. Hodonín: logical literature, d) systematic re- SOURCES: Masarykovo muzeum v Hodoníně, 2002, search into study requirements for pp. 88–92. museum professionals during the Archive of DAM, Centre of Museology (De- ICOFOM Study Series (1983–2012). In ICOM whole development, as well as e) partment of Archaeology and Museology, International Committee for Museology: critical comparative analysis of cur- Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, Our Publications [online]. Paris: ICOM, rent forms of museum educational Brno, Czech Republic) (unsystematized). 2010 [cit. 2016-08-15]. Available from programmes, f) the urge to define www:
71 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
and contribution of the Brno museo STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. De Museologia. Meta ISSOM. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, logy school. In Muzealizace v soudobé teoretická studie k základům muzeologie 2000. ISBN 80-210-1272-2. společnosti a poslání muzeologie/Museal jako vědy. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, STRÁNSKÁ, Edita, STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. ization in contemporary society and role Filozofická fakulta, 1992. 300 p. Inaugu- Základy štúdia muzeológie. Banská Štia- of museology: Sborník ze sympozia s mez ral dissertation. vnica: Univerzita Mateja Bela, Fakulta inárodní účastí pořádaného při příležitosti STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Brno: education in prírodných vied, Katedra eko-muzeo- životního jubilea tvůrce brněnské muzeo museology: on the 10. anniversary of the lógie, 2000. logické školy Zbyňka Z. Stránského/An foundation of the museological department VALÁŠKOVÁ, Lucie. Brněnská muzeologie thology from symposium with foreign par of the Philos. fac. of the J. E. Purkyně po roce 1990. Museologica Brunensia, ticipation in the occasion of anniversary of University in Brno. Brno: J. E. Purkyně 2014, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 21–27. ISSN 1805- the founder of the Brno museology school University, 1974. 52 p. -4722. Zbyněk Z. Stránský. Praha: Asociace STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Ist Museologie eine muzeí a galerií České republiky, 2008, kommunistische Wissenschaft? Eine s. 27–35. ISBN 978-80-86611-28-0. Entgegnung auf deutsche Einstellungen. LENKA MRÁZOVÁ NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Muzeum a věda. Praha: Museum Aktuell, 2001, no. 68 (April), Kabinet muzejní a vlastivědné práce při pp. 2759–2760. Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická fa- kulta, Ústav archeologie a muzeologie, Národním muzeu v Praze, 1968. Muzejní STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Metodologické otázky Oddělení muzeologie, UNESCO Chair práce, no. 13. současnosti. In Muzeologické sešity, 1974, of Museology and World Heritage, NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Otázky dnešního musejnic no. 5, pp. 5–43. Brno, Česká republika tví: Příspěvky k obecné a speciální museo STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Podstata muzeolo- mrazova. [email protected] logii. Praha: Orbis, 1950. gie a její zařazení do vysokoškolského NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří. Teorie ne návod k praxi. studia. In STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Lenka Mrázová is fellow in the In STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník Sborník materiálů prvého muzeologického Museology Section and coordina- materiálů prvého muzeologického sympo sympozia Brno – 1965. Brno: Moravské tor of activities of UNESCO Chair zia Brno – 1965. Brno: Moravské muzeum muzeum v Brně, 1966, pp. 10–17. of Museology and World Heri v Brně, 1966, pp. 18–19. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Předmět muzeologie. tage, Department of Archaeology PERNIČKA, Radko Martin. Proces realizace In STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník and Museology Faculty of Arts, a zkvalitňování postgraduálního studia materiálů prvého muzeologického sympo Masaryk University. She completed her studies in histo- muzeologie na filozofické fakultě UJEP zia Brno – 1965. Brno: Moravské muzeum ry, museology, and social pedago- v Brně. Muzeologické sešity: Supplemen v Brně, 1966, pp. 30–33. gy and counselling tum 3, 1985, pp. 71–84. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Rozvoj muzeologické at the Faculty of Arts of the PODBORSKÝ, Vladimír. Výuka muzeologie produkce a formování muzeologie jako Masaryk University and in 2003 na Masarykově univerzitě. In Muzealizace svébytného oboru. Muzeologické sešity: and 2004 she has worked as a mu- v soudobé společnosti a poslání muzeolo Supplementum 3, 1985, pp. 57–70. seum pedagogue in the Museum gie/Musealization in contemporary society STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník ma of Romani Culture in Brno. Since and role of museology: Sborník ze sympo teriálů prvého muzeologického sympozia 2004 she has been part-time zia s mezinárodní účastí pořádaného při Brno – 1965. Brno: Moravské muzeum lecturer and since 2015 she is fellow in the Museology Section příležitosti životního jubilea tvůrce brněn v Brně, 1966. of the Department of Archaeology ské muzeologické školy Zbyňka Z. Strán STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: and Museology, Faculty of Arts, ského/Anthology from symposium with Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evan- Masaryk University. She is lectu foreign participation in the occasion of gelisty Purkyně v Brně, 1972. 115 p. rer in further education courses anniversary of the founder of the Brno mu STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: of museum professionals and she seology school Zbyněk Z. Stránský. Praha: Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evan- co-operates as a methodologist Asociace muzeí a galerií České republiky, gelisty Purkyně v Brně, 1979. 167 p. and lecturer in educational pro- 2008, pp. 14–26. ISBN 978-80- STRÁNSKÝ, Z. Z. Úvod do muzeologie. Brno: jects for primary and secondary -86611-28-0. Filosofická fakulta University Jana Evan- schools focused on history, civics or multicultural education. She is RUTAR, Václav. Vznik, vývoj a práce ex- gelisty Purkyně v Brně, 1984. 167 p. concerned with museum pedagogy, terní katedry muzeologie v Brně v letech STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Úvod do studia museum didactics and isssues of 1963–1969. Museologica Brunensia, 2014, muzeologie: Určeno pro posluchače Inter museum and didactics interpreta- vol. 3, pp. 4–11. ISSN 1805-4722. national Summer School of Museology – IS tion. SCHNEIDER, Evžen. Specifické vzdělávání SOM. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 1995. muzejních pracovníků a jeho usoustavně- ISBN 80-210-0703-6. Lenka Mrázová je asistentkou ní v ČSR. Muzeologické sešity: Supplemen STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Úvod do studia oddělení muzeologie a koordiná- tum 3, 1985, pp. 85–126. muzeologie: Určeno pro posluchače Inter torkou činnosti Katedry UNESCO national Summer School of Museology – pro muzeologii a světové dědictví
72 2016 /05 /02
Ústavu archeologie a muzeologie Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity. Absolvovala studium historie, muzeologie a sociální pedagogiky a poradenství na Filozofické fakul- tě Masarykovy univerzity a v le- tech 2003 až 2004 pracovala jako muzejní pedagog v Muzeu romské kultury o.p.s. v Brně. Od roku 2004 působila jako externí vyu- čující oddělení muzeologie Ústavu archeologie a muzeologie Filozofic- ké fakulty Masarykovy univerzity, od roku 2015 je interní asistent- kou tohoto oddělení. Je lektorkou kurzů dalšího vzdělávání v oblasti muzeologie a muzejní edukace a jako metodik a lektor spolupracu- je na vzdělávacích projektech pro základní a střední školy zaměře- ných na dějepis, výchovu k občan- ství nebo multikulturní výchovu. Věnuje se muzejní pedagogice, muzejní didaktice a problematice muzejní a didaktické interpretace.
73 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
METODICKÉ A INFORMAČNÍ TEXTY/ METHODICAL AND INFORMATIVE TEXTS
EIN UNERSETZBARER. ZUM ABLEBEN VON ZBYNĚK Z. STRÁNSKÝ DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-8 FRIEDRICH WAIDACHER
Es ist schwer, einem Freund wie innerhalb weniger Stunden eine tie- Ausspruch verführte, der Stránský ihm nachzurufen. Zu tief waren fe Freundschaft, die auch fachlich sei ja großartig. Das konnte ich nur persönliche und fachliche Sympa- zu greifbaren Ergebnissen führen bestätigen. thie, um noch einen abgehobenen sollte. Schließlich war Zbyněk der objektiven Standpunkt einnehmen erste Forscher überhaupt, der den Wir hatten immer vieles zu bespre- zu können. Zwar habe ich vor ei- Erkenntnisgegenstand der Museolo- chen, schließlich war er auch Musi- nem Dezennium mein Skriptorium gie auf philosophischer Grundlage ker und Musikwissenschaftler und endgültig geschlossen, will aber den widerspruchsfrei definierte und hatte beim Organisten des Prager Nachkommenden doch einen Brief damit zum Begründer einer Wissen- Doms studiert. Sein Konzept einer schreiben. schaft wurde. linear strukturierten Ausstellung über Leoš Janáček, die in einer „Das muss man analysieren!“ lau- Leicht hatte er es nie gehabt. Schon konkreten Aufführung des Streich- tete seine Forderung, der er auch als Student wurde er von der Uni- quartetts „Intime Briefe“ ihren Hö- selbst stets mit unerbittlicher Stren- versität in Prag als Idealist relegiert hepunkt hätte finden sollen, wurde ge nachkam. Da er faules Denken, und musste sich jahrelang mühse- nie verwirklicht. Es wäre eine bis- ratio pigra, nicht ertragen konnte, lig durch das System eines rigiden her nicht dagewesene neue Form trat er dagegen stets kompromisslos Kommunismus arbeiten, bis er über des Ausstellungserlebens gewesen. auf und brauchte demnach über mehrere Stationen an der Universi- einen Mangel an Feinden nicht zu tät Brno ein Institut für Museologie Dass er als Böhme mit Wiener klagen. Als wir einmal gemein- aufbauen konnte. Großmutter über subtilen Humor sam an einer Tagung im Norden verfügte, war selbstverständlich. Europas teilnahmen, beleidigte er Als er einmal ausnamsweise zu Manchmal lieferte er auch skurrile in öffentlicher Diskussion gleich Gastvorlesungen in ein „sozialis- Episoden. Als ich einmal in Brno mehrere Diskutanten, indem er ihre tisches Bruderland“ reisen durfte, zum Mittagessen in einer Kantine Denkfehler schonungslos offenleg- wählte er die Zugverbindungen so, geladen war, bestand er darauf, mir te. Dann schwieg er trotzig. Ich dass er in Graz übernachten musste. mein Essen zu servieren und brach- übernahm seine Verteidigung und Er war bei meiner Frau und mir zu te eine Portion Brathuhn. Als ich erklärte in einfachen Schritten, was Gast, verbrachte allerdings die gan- ihn aufmerksam machte, dass ich er gemeint hatte. Dabei war er der ze Nacht lesend in meiner Biblio- Vegetarier sei, meinte er überrascht liebenswürdigste Mensch, aufmerk- thek, da er dort die Literatur fand, „Aber das ist doch Huhn.“ sam, höflich, humorvoll; nur als die in seinem Land verboten war. Philosoph kannte er keine Gnade. Seinen Ruhestand verbrachte er mit Wir trafen einander immer wieder. seiner Frau in bescheidenen Ver- Unser erstes Zusammentreffen fand Entweder nahm ich an der von ihm hältnissen in der Slowakei. Von dort 1980, in der Mitte unseres Lebens, begründeten International Sum- betrachtete er kritisch die Welt, in einem Nachbarland statt. Dort mer School of Museology in Brno klagte zuweilen über die Verwechs- waren wir als Vertreter unserer teil oder ich lud ihn zu Vorträgen lung von Museologie und „Vitrino- jeweiligen Muttersprachen zu ei- ein, etwa zum Österreichischen logie“ und zog sich mehr und mehr nem grotesken Projekt geladen, Museumstag. Da ich ihn dort dazu zurück. das schließlich nach vielen Jahren bewegen hatte können, seine von zu einem unbrauchbaren Resultat Natur aus sehr komplizierte und Da ihn zu seiner langjährigen Dia führte. Da schon die Anlage des dadurch fast unverständliche Spra- betes-Erkrankung in den letzten Unternehmens von Inkompetenz ge- che zu vereinfachen, erzielte er Jahren auch noch ein Parkinson- prägt war, fanden wir uns sofort auf einen durchschlagenden Erfolg, der Syndrom belastete, beschränkten derselben Seite und begründeten sogar einen kritischen Kollegen zum sich unsere Kontakte schließlich
74 2016 /05 /02
nur noch auf herzliche, aber spär- we were invited there to take part studied with the organist of Prague liche Zuschriften zu Geburtstagen in a grotesque project, which after Cathedral. His concept of a linearly und zum Jahreswechsel. many years finally led to useless structured exhibition about Leoš results. Since the organisation of Janáček, which may have culmina Es wird wohl noch lange dauern, the event already was marked by ted in a concrete performance of the bis seine epochale Bedeutung er- incompetence, we found ourselves string quartet “Intimate Letters”, kannt werden wird. immediately on the same side and was never realised. It would have started within a few hours a deep been an unprecedented and new friendship, which was predestined form of the exhibition experience. FRIEDRICH WAIDACHER to bring tangible results as well Museologe, Karl-Franzens-Universität in the professional field. Zbyněk Being a native Czech with Viennese Graz (emeritierter Professor) namely was the very first research- grandmother, he naturally had Österreich er who consistently defined the ob- a subtle sense of humour. Some- ject of knowledge in museology on times he also provided for comical a philosophical basis and became episodes. When I was once invited THE IRREPLACEABLE ONE. herewith the founder of a scholarly to have a lunch at a canteen in ON THE DEMISE discipline. The things were never Brno, he insisted on serving me my easy for him. In his student years he meal and brought a portion of roast OF ZBYNĚK Z. STRÁNSKÝ was relegated from the Prague uni- chicken. When I notified him that versity for ideological reasons, and I am a vegetarian, he responded FRIEDRICH WAIDACHER had to struggle laboriously through surprised “But this is chicken, it’s the rigid communist system. He all right.” passed through several positions at It is difficult to write an obituary the Brno university, until he finally He spent his retirement years with for a friend like him. The personal established the Department of Mu- his wife in modest conditions in as well as professional sympathies seology. Slovakia. From there he observed were too deep to be able to take an the world with a critical eye, com- objective standpoint. It is true that When he once exceptionally was plained sometimes that museology I finished my scriptorium definitely allowed to travel to a “socialist is often mistaken for “cabinetolo- ten years ago, but I will yet write sister country” to give there guest gy”, and withdrew more and more a letter to the successors. lectures, he chose rail connections into himself. which made him stay overnight in “It must be analysed!” sounded his Graz. He was a guest of my wife Because he suffered not only from requirement, with which he himself and me, but spent the whole night a long-term diabetes but in the past always complied with relentless reading in my library, because he years also from the Parkinson’s stringency. As he was not able to found there literature which was disease, our contacts eventually tolerate lazy thinking, ratio pigra, forbidden in his homeland. became limited to cordial but only he opposed it always very uncom- sporadic birthday greetings and promisingly and had therefore abso- We have met each other again and New Year wishes. lutely no reason to complain about again. I have either participated in a lack of enemies. When we once the International Summer School It probably will take a long time participated together in a confe of Museology in Brno, which was until his epochal significance will rence in North Europe, he offended founded by him, or invited him to be recognised. in a public discussion several dis- give lectures in Austria, for example cussants by unveiling mercilessly on the Austrian Museum Day. As the errors in their reasoning. Af- I was able to bring him to simplify FRIEDRICH WAIDACHER terwards he remained defiantly his language, which was by nature museologist, Karl-Franzens-Universität silent. I had to advocate him by very complicated and therefore al- Graz (Professor Emeritus) explaining in simple steps, what he most incomprehensible, he achieved Austria had in mind. But in fact he was the a resounding success, which even kindest man, attentive, polite, wit- made a critical colleague say that ty; only as a philosopher he showed Stránský was indeed brilliant. And no mercy. We met for the first time this was something that I could con- in 1980, in the middle of our life, firm. We always had many things in a neighbouring country. As rep- to discuss, since he was as well resentatives of our mother tongues a musician and musicologist and
75 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
METODICKÉ A INFORMAČNÍ TEXTY/ METHODICAL AND INFORMATIVE TEXTS
ZBYNĚK ZBYSLAV STRÁNSKÝ, ICOFOM
AND THE MUSEOLOGY DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-9
HILDEGARD K. VIEREGG
Zbyněk Stránský was without any (1977–1982) and the second period 1951 curator and 1958 director of doubt a very important expert on (1983–1989).1 I would like to add Moravian Museum in Brno/Czecho the museums – specialized on all of a further period from 1990 until slovakia (on January 1, 1993 the the problems in museology. I met now (2016). My own experience in state was divided into two States: him sometimes on the occasion of ICOFOM goes back to the Gener- Czech Republic and Slovakia). ICOFOM Annual Meetings, as for al Conference of ICOM 1983 and From 1971–1977 he was President example 1997 in Paris and Greno- the Annual Meeting of ICOFOM in of ICOM, afterwards he served as ble. Particularly I remember the vi Barbican Centre of London/GB. All Chairman of the Advisory Commit- sit to the Ecomusée Pierre de Bresse what happened before I can only tee. His opinion was characterized together with Vinoš Sofka. Vinoš take from talks with friendly col- by an interdisciplinary approach.3 was on the occasion of a reception leagues or publications. Probably van Mensch relates in this after the visit to the museum-area view to MuWoP no 2 (Museological playing the piano in a nice room of Stránský was on the one hand Working Papers) with the headline the small castle, while Stránský was a unique and extraordinary per- Interdisciplinarity in Museology.4 leaning on a windowsill contem- sonality in Museology. On the platively. This was a situation that other hand he mentioned himself Vinoš Sofka (1929–2016) came shows also the different opinions of the importance from colleagues of also from Brno. He had graduated both of them according to Museolo- Masaryk University and the moti- on the laws. Because of political gy. Both of them were companions vations of other museum experts conditions in the socialistic Czecho- coming from Brno (former Czecho- from home and abroad who were slovakia he emigrated in the 1960s slovakia) – the Moravian Museum interested in ICOFOM and Museolo- from Czechoslovakia to Sweden and Masaryk University. Brno and gy.2 Therefore, I will try to perform (Stockholm/Uppsala) and worked Praha played an extraordinary im- the relationship to some of his col- as Deputy Director at Stockholm portant role for Museology, cities leagues. Museum of History. In the years where it was more or less “created” after the founding of ICOFOM 1976 on a socialistic (Marxist-Leninistic) The founding period of ICOFOM both of them became successively source. was characterized by a few perso the Chairmen and formative per- nalities, as Jan Jelínek and Vinoš sonalities of this at that time most After the Second World War and Sofka from Brno and Jiří Neustupný important Committee of ICOFOM – the foundation of ICOM Museology from Praha, and of course, Stránský Jelínek from 1977–1983, Sofka from as the science became – from my as a student and follower of Jelínek. 1983–1989. view – a new trend in the Museum landscape. As we can read in an- Jan Jelínek (1926–2004) gradu- Sofka became “appointed Chair- other paragraph the theory and the ated as anthropologist from the person of the schools Scientific and interdisciplinarity were thereby the Brno University (1949), became decisive factor. 3 MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a methodology of museology. PhD thesis. Zagreb: University 1 MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a methodology of Zagreb, 1992. In eMuzeum [online]. Praha: Peter van Mensch describes in of museology. PhD thesis. Zagreb: University Centrum pro prezentaci kulturního dědictví, of Zagreb, 1992. In eMuzeum [online]. Praha: 2007, p. 25 [cit. 2016-09-10]. Available from his PhD thesis from 1992 Towards Centrum pro prezentaci kulturního dědictví, www:
76 2016 /05 /02
Pedagogical Council in 1990”5 and tivarious and heterogeneous”, “on For Stránský Rivière was of impor- 1994 Professor at the UNESCO several different levels, each of which tance for ICOFOM as he in a great Chair for Museology and World incommensurable with the other.”8 measure felt responsible for the Heritage in Brno and finally ini- development of the Ecomusées and tiated together with Stránský the There was another personality who New Museology, tasks to which International Summer School for influenced the development of ICO- Stránský also paid attention. Museology (ISSOM). From this time FOM and Museology, Georges Henri on he returned for the periods of Rivière (1897–1985) from France. The term “Ecomusée” that was later Summer- and Winter-Semester at Rivière at first studied Music (until characterized as “A center of this any time from Stockholm to Brno.6 1925) and then worked as a pianist idea of a museum lie not things, but in Paris. Because of his contacts to people”11 is more a result of coinci- Another personality in Czechoslo- George Gershwin, Josephine Baker dence. vakia I would like to introduce was and representatives of the perform- Jiří Neustupný (1906–1981), a cu- ing arts he was getting interested in On an international Conference rator of Prehistory at the National the Arts of non-European cultures. 1971 the former environmental Museum in Praha, the Director of Already by the end of the 1920s he minister Poujade used in attention the Center of Education and Muse- developed ideas and conceptions for to Hugues de Varine-Bohan (1891– ology, and a professor of Prehistory a contemporary type of a museum.9 1967)12 this term that was com- and Museology at the Faculty of Finally Rivière founded 1937 the bined between musée and écologie. Philosophy at the Charles University Musée National des Arts et Traditions 1972 this was on the occasion of an in Praha. He also particularly dealt populaires in Paris, and presented ICOM Conference in Lourmarsin/ with terms as Museography, Muse- it as a kind of “ideal-village” on France described more precisely. umskunde, Museology and others. the World Fair. Finally the Ecomu- The first international workshop Museology for him can be described seum resulted from the Musée de about this topic took place in Que- as “a theory and methodology of mu- Bretagne in Rennes, an Environ- bec/Canada (1984). One of the basic seum work” and he speaks in sup- mental Museum dating from the principles and aims was the decen- port of German museologists about year 1940.10 Rivière had already tralization of the museum-land- “Museumswissenschaft” as a “Quer- discovered the “ethnographic” mu- scape that in previous times as e. g. wissenschaft” (interdisciplinary seology, and after the Second World in France was concentrated to the science).7 As far as I see, he never War he established the Centre d’ capital of Paris.13 held an official post in ICOFOM. Ethnologie Française. The concep- In MuWoP no 2 Neustupný conti tion of Ecomusée was described as In his role as ICOM’s acting direc- nues the idea of interdisciplinarity “civilizations in their Natural Envi- tor Rivière visited Jelínek in the and describes “the participation in ronments.” A very important exam- Moravian Museum Brno 1964, was research activities as well as in the ple in this concern became the Eco- very interested in Jelínek’s “multi- popularization of knowledge” as musée Pierre-de-Bresse, situated not disciplinary approach” to Anthro- a most striking fact and as “mul- far from Grenoble that was already pology and Palaeontology and tried mentioned before. to take influence on Museology. In 5 SOFKA, Vinoš. My adventurous life with van Mensch’s estimation years later, ICOFOM, museologists and anti-museologists, giving special reference to ICOFOM Study Series. 1948–1965 he had been the first on the occasion of the Annual Meet- April 1995. In ICOM International Committee chair and acting director of ICOM, ing of ICOFOM in Mexico (1980), for Museology: Our Publications [online]. Paris: ICOM, 2010 [cit. 2016-09-30]. Available from the International Council of Muse- “Rivière tried to manipulate the www:
77 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
The main problem was the status of much, I never would expect that all Role in the co-operation between ecomuseums and the so-called New of our readers must master these the many personalities, the effective Museology within ICOM.14 languages. support from Moravian Museum and personalities from the Masaryk In the Museological Working Papers Nevertheless, usually the museum University (Kateřina Tlachová, Vi- no 1 (MuWoP) 1980 Stránský pub- experts from socialistic countries noš Sofka, František Gale, Eduard lished one of his first substantial were in agreement about research Schmidt, Jiří Šrámek).19 articles relating museum-issues: areas and political positions – of- about the mission and particularly ten controlled by the Party of their Bodensee-Symposium the terms. In this concern Strán- States.17 ský also attracted attention with In the second phase 1989 the his systematization according to 1980 Stránský asked the same “Bodensee-Symposium“ took place questions to Museology: “science or questions as many times before and to the topic “Museologie. Neue just practical work?”, terms contain- repeated very often his idea about Wege – Neue Ziele.“20 This was ing “-logy”, “science” or “practical Museology as a Science or only organized by Hermann Auer, at work”.15 He also complains in this Practical work. that time the President of the Ger- concern that the trial to define man National Committee of ICOM “Museology” (George Henri Riviè 1981 Stránský published in Neue (1968–1992) and former General re/France, Roberto Aloi/Italy, Museumskunde, edited by the “Rat Director of Deutsches Museum Jiří Neustupný/Charles University für Museumswesen beim Ministerium (1959–1971) and Professor at the Praha/Czechoslovakia, Avram Moi- für Kultur der Deutschen Demokra- Munich University for Natural seevich Razgon/Soviet Union, Ellis tischen Republik” about theory and Sciences and the Techniques. Burcaw/University of Idaho/USA, practice of the museum work, an Joachim Ave/Museum für Deutsche article about Die Prinzipien der mu- Auer had organized and accompa- Geschichte Berlin/GDR) would be sealen Ausstellung (The Principles of nied a German team of museum-ex- only a “metaphorical approach”.16 museal Exhibitions) in German lan- perts to the General Conference of This was a serious critique against guage. This was related to a speech ICOM to Latin American countries competent and experienced col- at an International seminar for (1986) – Argentina and Brazil – and leagues. Above that, this critique Museology 1977 in Veszprem/UVR, had collected new suggestions for reveals that the definitions of mu- and with the agreement of the au- Museology world-wide together seum-terms were not given clearly thor revised for the print edition in with his team. Two years later he enough. Stránský apparently liked Neue Museumskunde.18 invited Stránský to the Boden- to express the opinions – from his see-Symposium (1988), as a highly point complicated and in order 1987 the ISSOM Summer School estimated personality because of his to outface others. He liked it to took place in Brno. Zbyněk Stránský ideas to Museum development and express his view with “synthetic” was really its founder. In his article the recent positions of a socialistic terms. This also relates to his use Ten years of the International Sum- Museology. of Latin language. Although I also mer School of Museology (ISSOM) like the humanistic education with 1997 he describes on the one hand Stránský, as the responsible curator languages as Greek and Latin very the political constraints in Czecho of the department for Museology slovakia under the communist re- 14 MENSCH, Peter van. Towards a methodology of museology. PhD thesis. Zagreb: University gime and the serious intervention 19 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Ten Years of the Interna- of Zagreb, 1992. In eMuzeum [online]. Praha: of “secret state police”. On the other tional Summer School of Museology (ISSOM). In Centrum pro prezentaci kulturního dědictví, STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk (ed.). Museology for Tomor- 2007, p. 27 [cit. 2016-09-10]. Available from hand he relates to the important row’s World. Proceedings of the international sym- www:
78 2016 /05 /02
in the Moravian Museum/Brno/ in Latin language Inscriptiones vel disciplinary relationships.27 This is Czechoslovakia, participated in. In tituli Theatri amplissimi – shortly really an approach to the opinions the context of the symposium was “Theatrum Sapientiae” already in- of other museologists. the first part about the development cluded the plan for an ideal condi- of Museology to an independent tion of a museum. Moreover, in his speech at Boden- science. Stránský referred in his see-Symposium he focused very speech to the theoretical principles There are other approaches from clearly on the collecting of objects for museology as a science (“Die the early modern times. and the systematization of termi- theoretischen Grundlagen der Muse- nology, museological terms as “Mu- ologie als Wissenschaft”).21 Carl von Linné (1707–1778), seality”, “Musealia”, the process of a natural scientist and professor musealization and to the term of While he firstly asked if Museology for anatomy and medicine at the Museology itself.28 was existing at all, then he con- Swedish Uppsala University crea firmed on the one hand the exist- ted the “Systema Naturae” (1735) Stránský distinguishes between the ence of theory, research work and and “Philosophia Botanica” (1751). “museum object, i.e. the object as a methodology, and on the other This system is until now of great such (deposited in store-rooms and hand a very long history, in the tra- importance for inventarisation and displayed in the museums)” and the ditional Europe, starting with Sam- related to systems in connection to musealia which he understood as uel Quiccheberg in Munich (1565), museum collections.24 a concept, an “imaginary object”, Johann D. Major in Kiel (1674), perceive and experienced, but not C. F. Neickelius in Leipzig (1727), August Klemm (1802–1867), art being merely the thing itself.29 J. G. T. Graesse in Dresden (1877), historian and librarian, published Office international des musées, the already 1837 a book about the his- As a result of his intensive work first international organization for tory of collections for Science and with Museology since about 1965, museums.22 Art in Germany. The Museum for he was often dealing with terms in Ethnology in Leipzig united after its another museological occasion. In the Museological Working Papers foundation (1869) the collections of (MuWoP no 1, 1980)23 he had addi- Klemm.25 Already 1981 he had dealt with the tionally mentioned Carl von Linné, topic of “Museum Language” in his Gustav Klemm, Murray, Julius von Johann Theodor Graesse (1814– article Die Prinzipien der musealen Schlosser and Coleman. 1885) characterized 1883 at the Ausstellung.30 Some examples: In the first time Museology as a Science case of explaining the term “lan- Quiccheberg´ s (1529–1567) very in his journal “Zeitschrift für Muse- guage” as an approach “to linguis- first museological book composed ologie und Antiquitätenkunde sowie tics from semiotics and semiology”31 verwandte Wissenschaften.”26 he relates to the lack of exhibitions 21 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Die theoretischen Grund- and says that museum professionals lagen der Museologie als Wissenschaft. In AUER, Furthermore Stránský continues the Hermann (ed.). Museologie. Neue Wege – Neue 27 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Die theoretischen Grund- Ziele. Bericht über ein internationales Symposium ideas of his historic predecessors lagen der Museologie als Wissenschaft. In AUER, veranstaltet von den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der in a more philosophical way. He Hermann (ed.). Museologie. Neue Wege – Neue Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreichs und der Ziele. Bericht über ein internationales Symposium Schweiz vom 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 am Bodensee. relates to the development of Muse- veranstaltet von den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der München/London/NewYork/Paris: K. G. Saur ology in the context of the current- Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreichs und der Verlag, 1989, pp. 38–39. ness of society. Museology as a sci- Schweiz vom 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 am Bodensee. 22 ANANIEV, Vitaly. International Museum Office – ence should in this concern find its München/London/NewYork/Paris: K. G. Saur first international museums organization. St. Peters- Verlag, 1989, p. 40. burg, 2016. Unpublished manuscript. place in the system of the sciences 28 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Die theoretischen Grund- 23 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Die theoretischen Grund- and also take care about the inter- lagen der Museologie als Wissenschaft. In AUER, lagen der Museologie als Wissenschaft. In AUER, Hermann (ed.). Museologie. Neue Wege – Neue Hermann (ed.). Museologie. Neue Wege – Neue Ziele. Bericht über ein internationales Symposium Ziele. Bericht über ein internationales Symposium veranstaltet von den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der veranstaltet von den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreichs und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreichs und der 24 VIEREGG, Hildegard. Geschichte des Museums. Schweiz vom 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 am Bodensee. Schweiz vom 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 am Bodensee. Eine Einführung. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München/London/NewYork/Paris: K. G. Saur München/London/NewYork/Paris: K. G. Saur 2008, pp. 46–48, 221. Verlag, 1989, pp. 40–46. Verlag, 1989, pp. 38–39. See Stránský also in Mu- 25 VIEREGG, Hildegard. Geschichte des Museums. 29 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. The Language of Exhibi seological Working Papers – MuWoP no. 1/1980. Eine Einführung. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, tion. ICOFOM Study Series, 1991, vol. 19, p. 131. In ICOM International Committee for Museology: 2008, p. 147. Our Publications [online]. Paris: ICOM, 2010, p. 43 30 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Die Prinzipien der [cit. 2016-09-24]. Available from www:
79 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
sometimes don’ t distinguish be- erences, although he often empha- Stránský himself didn’ t give an tween an exhibition and the compo- sizes on Museology as a Science.37 article to the main-topic, rather he sition of an exhibition.32 described the history of Ten years of From my view the publication from the International Summer School of He relates to visual language and 1989 (Auer) is much more forward Museology (ISSOM). non-verbal languages. Stránský looking than the following to the ti- describes in his Language of Exhi- tle Museology for Tomorrow’s World, In order to fulfil scientific issues bitions the language as a “system of edited by Stránský himself. 38 Ne in an international symposium at signs.” With good reason he severily vertheless, the symposium and the a University readers would expect critizises that many exhibitions-con- publication are very meritoriously, more adequate information and cepts are overwhelmed with long because Stránský included foreign a clear way of citation. But there is texts “because they (the curators) experience in the Czechoslovakian on my view also a lack of a clear do not know how to work with other system. general conception about the Sum- than textual systems of signs.”33 In- mer School. stead of he focuses on a system of This also applies to his own article signs, used for mutual understand- about Ten years of the International Quite apart from the fact that he re- ing – as the language of sounds, Summer School of Museology (IS- lated to an alignment of ISSOM on writing, pictures, agreed signals. SOM) at Masaryk University/Brno. “a very broad orientation in the fields This follows the result that the lan- of philosophy, science and culture”40 guage of exhibitions is a language In the publication Museology for he didn’ t say anything about these of signs in a metaphorical sense. Tomorrow’s World well-known and interesting fields on main topic Mu- prestigious personalities from the seology for Tomorrow’s World. In the Stránský in this concern relates to home country, other European last paragraph he only mentioned Charles W. Morris (1901–1979), an countries and Canada who were “pedagogical approaches, didactic American philosopher and semioti- invited to ISSOM 1996 gave spee methods and techniques, and creative cian, and his work Fundamentals of ches and wrote articles exactly on conditions for the improvement of the Theory of Signs.34 “The first is the the announced topics: Belgium (1) museology.”41 carrier of the sign, the second is what Canada (1), Croatia (1 author, 3 ar- the sign is related to, and the third is ticles), Czech Republic (5), England Conclusion the user of the sign.”35 (1), Federal Republic of Germany (1), France (1), German Democratic Stránský was as he is character- These were followed by Signs, Lan- Republic (1), Romania (1), Russia ized by many experts a “Museum guage and Behaviour (1946). Accord- (1), Switzerland (1), Yugoslavia (1).39 Philosopher“. But I never could ing to Morris language is a system experience – from all of the articles of signs36 united in a “Semiotisches Nevertheless, it is surprising that I read – which other philosophers Dreieck” (semiotical triangle): Be- from the 18 authors only 6 used the at least from European or foreign griff (term), Symbol (symbol), Ding scientific kind of quotations, notes countries of the past or present (thing). or a bibliography – and the others were ideals for him (maybe Morris, didn’ t although Museology was Schopenhauer). When I would know Surprisingly, neither in this arti- already appreciated as a Science, this I had the chance to talk about cle nor in in the ISS 16 Forecasting and Stránský demanded scientificity the contents of his capability more a Museological Tool (1989) Stránský from his colleagues. adequately. himself used scientific notes or ref- Shortly to say: He was a little bit proud on his knowledge in Museo 32 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. The Language of STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. [without title]. ICOFOM logy, and also in the Latin language, Exhibition. ICOFOM Study Series, 1991, vol. 19, 37 Study Series, 1989, vol. 16, pp. 297–301. pp. 129–133. he used often without thinking STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Ten years of the Inter- 33 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. The Language of Exhibi- 38 about whether this language except national Summer School of Museology (ISSOM). tion. ICOFOM Study Series, 1991, vol. 19, p. 129. In STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk (ed.). Museology for 40 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk (ed.). Museology for 34 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. The Language of Exhibi- Tomorrow’s World. Proceedings of the international Tomorrow’s World. Proceedings of the international tion. ICOFOM Study Series, 1991, vol. 19, p. 130. symposium held at Masaryk University, Brno, Oct symposium held at Masaryk University, Brno, Oct 35 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. The Language of Exhibi- 9–11, 1996. Munich: Verlag Dr. Christian Müller- 9–11, 1996. Munich: Verlag Dr. Christian Müller- tion. ICOFOM Study Series, 1991, vol. 19, p. 130. Straten, 1997, pp. 143–151. Straten, 1997, p. 150. 36 MORRIS, Charles W. Philosophy of Language. 39 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk (ed.). Museology for 41 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk (ed.). Museology for Writings on a General theory of Signs. The Hage Tomorrow’s World. Proceedings of the international Tomorrow’s World. Proceedings of the international Muton, 1971, p. 103; MORRIS, Charles W. Foun- symposium held at Masaryk University, Brno, Oct symposium held at Masaryk University, Brno, Oct dations of the Theory of Signs (German Language). 9–11, 1996. Munich: Verlag Dr. Christian Müller- 9–11, 1996. Munich: Verlag Dr. Christian Müller- Frankfurt, 1988. Straten, 1997. -Straten, 1997, p. 151.
80 2016 /05 /02
in Czechoslovakia is understandable in other European countries und countries abroad.
There are without any doubt fa- mous European museum experts, colleagues or even scholars whom I was not able to honor because of the enlargement of this article: The famous André Desvallées (France) and Ivo Maroević (Croatia), Wojcech Gluziński (Poland), Klaus Schreiner (GDR), Martin Schaerer (Switzer- land) and, a scholar of Stránský, Jan Dolák (teaching until now at the Chair of Ethnology and Museology of Comenius University Bratislava).
Nevertheless, concerning Stránský it is amazing that he was able to de- velop museology with colleagues in socialistic countries and to partici- pate in the international discussion on Museology, although he was for a long time widely separated from the world outside.
HILDEGARD K. VIEREGG Munich School of Philosophy, Munich Germany
81 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
METODICKÉ A INFORMAČNÍ TEXTY/ METHODICAL AND INFORMATIVE TEXTS
THE INFLUENCE OF Z. Z. STRÁNSKÝ’S IDEAS ON THE FORMATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MUSEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE OF SAINT PETERSBURG STATE INSTITUTE OF CULTURE DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-10
MARIA J. GUBARENKO
Currently, in different countries with time its participation has signi creation of the museology depart there exist a variety of diverging ficantly decreased.3 The position of ment.6 L. M. Shlyahtina notes that views on museology, starting from Russia, Eastern European countries, the understanding of museology, its official recognition as a science and probably some other countries, introduced by Z. Stránský, lays at the national and professional le concerning the definition of muse at the foundation of educational vels and ending with the use of this ology hasn’ t significantly changed strategies and museum workers’ term rather as a definition of the since the first theoretical investi preparation concepts7 and moreover theory and methodology of museum gations in the field of museology it was an impetus to further devel work. The creation of International scientific development. Conversely, opment of thought and research Committee for Museology (ICO such theoretical developments in in the field of theoretical museo FOM) in 1977 is considered to be these countries continue and they logy. L. M. Shlyahtina has created a milestone in the recognition of are reflected in numerous research a course “Theoretical problems of museology as a scientific and aca works of museologists. It is impor museology”, which has been taught demic discipline by the global com tant to point out that in 1960s the at the department of museology munity, developing an international acceleration of museological theory since its creation. platform for theoretical investiga development was provoked by the tions in this field. Nowadays in the fact that this discipline was for the The Department of Museology XXI century the common official first time being taught at the uni and Cultural Heritage of Saint Pe position of ICOM is the non-accept versities.4 An outstanding museolo tersburg State Institute of Culture ance of museology as an independ gist Z. Stránský (1926–2016) noted continues to develop and to refer to ent scientific discipline with its that the necessity of the educational some statements of Czech museolo definition as a “field of activity”.1 programs’ development has deep gists, probably the most significant Researchers of ICOM state that “the ened the theoretical background of of which is the “father of museolo similarities of museology with a sci- museology.5 gy” Z. Stránský, also J. Neustupný, ence – even with a developing one – J. Beneš. This fact is reflected in are slowly fading, as neither its object In St. Petersburg the department scientific works of professors, gra nor its methods really correspond of museology was founded in 1988 duate and undergraduate students epistemological criteria of a specific at the initiative of N. I. Sergeeva of the department. scientific approach.“2 (1920–2011). V. P. Gritskevitch (1922–2013) and L. M. Shlyahti Among them we can name In the 1960s–1980s Czechoslovak na were also the initiators of the the scientific investigations of played an important role in the 6 MASTENICE, Elena. Podgotovka muzeologov 3 MENSCH, Peter van. K metodologii muzeologii. international activity of ICOM, but v usloviyakh perekhoda na mnogourovnevuyu Voprosy muzeologii, 2014, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 15–291 sistemu obrazovaniya. In Trudy Sankt- [online]. [cit. 2016-09-02]. Available from www: Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta
82 2016 /05 /02
L. M. Shlyahtina, Е. Н. Mastenitsa ions on this matter13). It is crucial of the object’s cultural value after and their followers such as J. V. Zi to point out that Russian authors its transformation in the process of novieva,8 S. V. Pshenichnaya,9 use a limited amount of sources of musealisation. “Museum is one of the A. J. Volkovitch,10 O. S. Sapanzha11 Czech museologists, basically they historically developed forms for the and others. O. S. Sapanzha is the include the works of Z. Stránský embodiment of the specific, museal research advisor of students that (in German and also translated attitude of man to reality, which is are currently exploring the scienti into Russian). It is related to the not a constant thing, but a changing fic works of Stránský. fact that the number of Czech mu one, moreover, it should change in seologists’ publications in Russia is historical and social constellations,“16 L. M. Shlyahtina states that “the considerably low. There are some noted Stránský. His concept of mu Saint Petersburg State Institute of articles, but yet there aren’ t any sealisation as a subject of scientific Culture is exactly a place where monographs translated into Rus knowledge of museology became a proper museological scientific sian. fundamental for the science. school is currently being formed at“12 (although there are other opin The understanding of museology, This theory was accepted by many its subject, object, structure, termi museologists in Russia. However, nology and methodology by Strán it is crucial to point out that the ský has been changing during the understanding and interpretation 8 ZINOV’YEVA, Yuliya. Vzaimodeystvie muzeya i obshchestva kak sotsiokul’turnaya problema. process of his scientific researches. of the term “musealisation“ and its Avtoref. dis. [online]. Spb., 2000 [cit. 2016-09-02]. This article covers the content and derivatives, has undergone signifi Available from www:
83 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
of material evidence,“18 which is very tematic and informative-semiotic theoretical thinking of Stránský on close to Stránský’s definition. approaches in the museum inves this issue.27 Stránský distinguishes the main tigation allows to shape a holistic structure of the system of museolo view of the museum as a “complex In can be concluded that the conti gy as follows: dynamic socio-cultural information nuity Z. Z. Stránský’s concepts and and communication system.“22 ideas can be found in theoretical Diachronic19 (the levels of museo works of professors and students of logical study)/Historical museology Stránský highlights the necessity to The Department of Museology and Synchronous/Modern museology combine “museological thinking“ Cultural Heritage of Saint Peters Theoretical/Theoretical museology with the modern philosophical and burg State Institute of Culture with Applied/Museography scientific thinking. Museology is their significant influence on scien Metamuseology. merging with onthology, noethics tific development. and axiology.23 Е. Н. Mastenitsa also The structure of museology accord addresses this issue, pointing out ing to L. M. Shlyahtina consists of that at the turn of XX–XXI centuries MARIA J. GUBARENKO history, theory, museum chronolo museology was facing an introduc Saint-Petersburg State University of gy, applied museology. In its turn tion of “philosophical paradigm, ori- Culture O. S. Sapanzha highlights 3 levels of ented on human study in the diversity Russian Federation research which are: of all its interconnections with civi- lization, society, family… The past Conceptual level (museology), century was marked by the graduate Synthetic level (museology and mu retreat from the positivistic fragmen- seography), tation of humanities to the affirma- Technological level (museum activ tion of a more scientifically universal ity).20 cultural and historical picture of hu- man and social development…“24 Theoretical museology, according to Stránský, is the centre of this sys The works of Е. Н. Mastenitsa25 and tem, explaining the museal process L. M. Shlyahtina26 examine the by theoretical “subsystems“:21 sub interdisciplinarity and multidiscipli theory of selection, thesaurus com narity of museology, described by pilation, presentation. These three Stránský. Investigations in the field sub theories, based on Stránský’s of museology methodology were structure, are described in the work held by О. S. Sapanzha and have of L. M. Shlyahtina as a theoretical many parallels and similarities with basis of museum activity.
S. V. Pshenichnaya in her resear ches creates her own conceptual 22 PSHENICHNAYA, Svetlana. Muzey kak model of a museum as a specific informatsionno-kommunikativnaya sistema. Avtoref. information and communication dis. Spb., 2000. system. From the point of view of 23 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Archeologie a muzeologie. S. V. Pshenichnaya the use of sys Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2005, p. 108. 24 MASTENITSA, Elena and Lyudmila 18 SHLYAKHTINA, Lyudmila and Elena SHLYAKHTINA. Muzey i muzeevedenie MASTENITSA. Muzeologiya i ee metody v sisteme v universitetskom obrazovanii. Filosofskiy vek. sotsial’no-gumanitarnykh nauk. Fakty i versii: Al’manakh. Vyp. 30. Istoriya universitetskogo Istoriko-kul’turologicheskiy al’manakh Issledovaniya obrazovaniya i mezhdunarodnye traditsii i materialy. Kn.4. Metodologiya. Simvolika. prosveshcheniya. T. 3. Spb., 2005, pp. 307–314. Semantika. SPb.: IMISP, 2005, p. 29. 25 MASTENITSA, Elena. Muzeologiya 19 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Archeologie a muzeologie. v prostranstve mezhdistsiplinarnogo SAPANZHA, Ol’ga. Tekhnologiya Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2005, p. 116. vzaimodeystviya. Vestn. Len. gos. univ. im. 27 A. S. Pushkina. Nauch. zhurnal. No. 3. Tom 2. i metodologiya v sovremennom muzeevedenii: 20 SAPANZHA, Ol’ga. Istoriografiya muzeologii, Filosofiya, 2013, pp. 155–164. k voprosu o metode nauki. Izvestiya Rossiyskogo muzeevedeniya, muzeografii: k voprosu gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta razdeleniya ponyatiy. Voprosy muzeologii, 2013, 26 SHLYAKHTINA, Lyudmila and Elena im. A.I. Gertsena, 2009, no. 117, pp. 337–340; no. 2(8), p. 201. MASTENITSA. Muzeevedenie kak faktor SAPANZHA, Ol’ga. Razvitie predstavleniy optimizatsii razvitiya muzeynogo dela. o muzeynoy kommunikatsii. Izvestiya Rossiyskogo 21 STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk. Archeologie a muzeologie. Kul’turologicheskie issledovaniya v Sibiri. Omsk: gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2005, p. 122. Izd. Dom Nauka, 2009, no. 3(29), p. 71. A. I. Gertsena, 2009, no. 103, p. 249.
84 2016 /05 /02
METODICKÉ A INFORMAČNÍ TEXTY/ METHODICAL AND INFORMATIVE TEXTS
MOJE VZPOMÍNKY NA DOCENTA PHDR. ZBYŇKA Z. STRÁNSKÉHO (26. 10. 1926–21. 1. 2016) DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-11 VLADIMÍR PODBORSKÝ
Při přípravě materiálů na tyto vzpo- tel Komise pro muzeologii ICOFOM nět profesora Vladimíra Podborské- mínky jsem si s opravdovou chutí JUDr. Vinoš Sofka spolu s docentem ho roku 1994). „zalistoval“ v paměti. Rozpomínal Zbyňkem Z. Stránským. jsem se, kdy jsem vlastně poprvé Stránského koncepce muzeologie Stránského, kterého osud vzhledem Jen stručně chci uvést početné byla pozitivně přijímána v řadě k jeho „buržoaznímu původu“ nijak zásluhy Stránského o rozvoj naší zemí (NDR, Jugoslávie, Rakousko, nešetřil, tuto naši i světovou muzeo- i světové muzeologie: zřízení ce- Holandsko, Skandinávie). To vyvo- grafickou a muzeologickou veličinu, lostátních kurzů muzejních kon- lalo pozornost nejen v rámci ICOM, a vlastně nejen muzeologickou, ný- zervátorů (které Stránský sám ale přímo v UNESCO, na jehož brž obecně kulturní veličinu osobně vedl přes 20 let), realizace prvého podnět Stránský vypracoval v roce poznal; z odborné literatury jsem muzeologického symposia roku 1983 projekt Mezinárodní letní ško- samozřejmě již o něm leccos věděl. 1965, na němž zdůvodnil potřebu ly muzeologie, která zahájila čin- vysokoškolské muzeologické výuky nost v roce 1986. Bylo to v roce 1962, kdy byl Strán- a vymezil metateoretický přístup ský s pomocí muzejního architekta k muzeologii jako vědního oboru, Po roce 1989 byl Stránský rehabili- Viléma Hanka přijat do Moravského založení sborníku Muzeologické tován a pověřen vedením samostat- muzea. Již od ledna 1963 tam začal sešity roku 1968, realizace mezi- né katedry muzeologie na FF MU budovat muzeologické oddělení jako národní konference o muzeologii a rovněž vedením a profesurou středisko metodiky muzejní práce roku 1969 (na níž prezentoval svůj International Summer School of a současně inicioval zřízení exter- systém muzeologie jako vědního Museology, která byla situována ní katedry muzeologie na tehdejší oboru) atd. Zvláště pak musím zmí- na Rektorátě MU v Brně. Stal se UJEP v Brně. Realizaci tohoto pro- nit projekt tzv. postgraduálního členem ICOM, místopředsedou ICO- jektu zaštítil svým jménem tehdejší studia muzeologie, schválený čes- FOM, předsedou Muzeologické spo- ředitel Moravského muzea profesor kým Ministerstvem školství, jehož lečnosti, předsedou Zväzu múzeí na Jan Jelínek. Externí katedra muze- první běh proběhl roku 1965. Toto Slovensku a čestným členem Union ologie byla na UJEP zřízena uzavře- studium absolvovalo do počátku 90. of Museologists. ním dohody mezi tehdejším rekto- let více než 380 posluchačů z Čes- rem UJEP profesorem Theodorem koslovenska. V roce 1993 se mi podařilo PhDr. Martincem a generálním ředitelem Zbyňka Z. Stránského habilitovat UNESCO Frederico Mayorem v lis- Po realizaci výstavy „Cesta muzeí“, (se souhlasem Vědecké rady FF MU topadu 1994; od roku 1996 začala která prezentovala v 70. letech bez vědecké hodnosti CSc.) a jme- skutečně pracovat. Jejím vedením 20. století historickou úlohu mu- novat ho docentem muzeologie. byl pověřen tehdy již ve světě re- zeologie, byl Stránský označen za V rámci tehdy ještě ne zcela kon- nomovaný muzeologický činitel, „kosmopolitu“ a bylo navrženo jeho solidovaných poměrů to kupodivu původně ekonomický náměstek ře- okamžité propuštění. Nakonec byl prošlo. Tak se stalo, že Stránský je ditele Archeologického ústavu ČSAV „připuštěn k práci“, ale externí ka- do dneška jediným u nás habilito- v Brně JUDr. Vinoš Sofka. tedra muzeologie byla roku 1978 vaným docentem muzeologie, a ne- začleněna do rámce katedry prehis- chybělo mnoho, aby se stal i jejím Tehdy však vstoupila do hry ještě torie/archeologie tehdejší FF UJEP, profesorem. další instituce: Katedra UNESCO vedené tenkrát docentem Radko pro muzeologii a světové dědictví – M. Perničkou; katedra prehistorie/ Při habilitaci PhDr. Zbyňka UNESCO Chair of Museology and archeologie a muzeologie existovala Z. Stránského jsem vycházel World Heritage. Podnět k založení v letech 1978–1986 (navázal na ni z pevného přesvědčení, kterého tohoto zvláštního pracoviště pod zá- Ústav archeologie a muzeologie FF se přidržuji dosud, že muzeologie štitou UNESCO dal právě představi- MU – ÚAM FF MU, zřízený na pod- má být považována na samostatný
85 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
vědní obor, jak je tomu ve většině Nyní se vrátím k osobnosti docenta mě přednášku právě v „metajazyce“. zemí světa. Podávali jsme spolu se Stránského. To ovšem na členy rady, jmenovitě Stránským v tomto smyslu něko- na lékaře, přírodovědce, a konečně lik návrhů, doplněných četnými Stránský byl nepochybně svým fi- ani na filozofy nezapůsobilo, na- faktografickými doklady, českému lozofickým a politickým založením opak. Sebevědomé chování Strán- Ministerstvu školství, ale vždycky antikomunista. Ale v dobách komu- ského je naopak spíše popudilo. se našel někdo, nebo někteří, kteří nistického režimu se snažil s tímto Hlasování vyznělo pro kandidáta tyto návrhy odmítali; snad z nevě- režimem nějak vycházet, aby mohl jednoznačně negativně. domosti, snad z mylné představy pracovat. Také věděl, že komuni- o muzeích jako odkladišti starého stická politika vybraných a tudíž Tehdejší rektor MU profesor Eduard nepotřebného harampádí… podporovaných oborů (včetně mu- Schmidt mně potom ostře vytknul, zeologie) má i oproti „svobodným“, že jsem neměl o Stránského pro- Tak se stalo, že Česká republika je především západním zemím, kde se fesuře vůbec uvažovat, že jsem ho jednou z velmi mála zemí, kde mu- jednotlivé vědní obory musejí ne- neměl před Vědeckou radu MU pus- zeologie není stále uznávána za sa- jednou tvrdě prosazovat, své výho- tit, že jsem zavinil poškození dobré mostatný vědní obor. Přitom je zná- dy. V tomto smyslu se dal několikrát pověsti nejen Vědecké rady FF, mo, že na světě jsou tisíce muzeí, dost hlasitě slyšet i na fóru Filozo- nýbrž celé univerzity atd. Já jsem samozřejmě různého druhu a různé fické fakulty. Nebylo tudíž divu, že se samozřejmě bránil: ukázal jsem kvality: od seriózních ústavů až ho mnozí členové Vědecké rady FF panu rektorovi šest jednoznačně po „panoptikální“ zařízení jako je považovali div ne za komunistu, doporučujících dopisů jmenování např. „Muzeum voskových figurín a dali mu to také pocítit při hlaso- Stránského profesorem od předních Madame Tussaud“ se sídlem v Lon- vání o jeho jmenování profesorem, zahraničních profesorů a další vy- dýně a s mnoha pobočkami od Hon- které jsem vyvolal, tentokrát ne soce pochvalné dokumenty o jeho gkongu přes Las Vegas, New York až muzeologie – to by vůbec neprošlo – mezinárodní muzeologické a obecně po Vídeň, nebo muzea jednotlivých nýbrž na návrh Mons. Prof. PhDr. kulturologické proslulosti. Otázal osobností (samozřejmě opět různé Petra Piťhy, CSc., Dr.h.c. – kulturo- jsem se pana rektora, zda jsem měl kvality), jako např. „Muzeum Prin- logie. Když jsem za to na Vědecké tyto dokumenty ignorovat? Na to cezny Diany Spencer“ v Londýně, radě FF loboval, Vědecká rada to pan rektor jen nerozhodně pokrčil nebo „Muzeum Waldemara Matuš- jednomyslně odmítla. I můj nejlepší rameny. ky“ v Jaroměři-Josefově apod. přítel, profesor Rudolf Pečman, kte- rý mi nikdy nic neodmítl, prohlásil, Buď jak buď, Stránský se profeso- A při té spoustě muzeí, tentokrát že Stránskému musí stačit docentu- rem nestal. Velmi se ho to dotklo; mám na mysli jen seriózní ústavy, ra… myslím si, že to až do konce života je naprosto nezbytné, aby se muzea „neskousnul“. řídila jednotnými zásadami a prin- Stránského se však zastal profesor cipy, zejména pokud pracují s elek- Piťha, v letech 1992–1994 ministr Dnes je tedy pan docent Stránský již tronickou evidencí, dokumentací školství ve vládě ČR Václava Klau- „na pravdě boží“ („jak říkají ateis- a hodnocením sbírek. se, který si byl vědomý Stránského té“…). Prošel cestou, kterou jednou hlubokého humanitního vzdělání projdeme všichni. Seriózní muzejní ústavy mají funkce a založení, a návrh na jmenování Jak je tomu vlastně s posmrtným vnitřní a vnější. Stránského profesorem doporučil životem v pojetí věřících a v pojetí Vědecké radě MU přece jen předlo- ateistů? Vnitřní funkce spočívají ve výběru žit. muzejních předmětů (funkce heuri- Z živých lidí to nikdo neví, z mrt- stická), neboť ne každý předmět je A tak jsem měl povinnost v roce vých se nikdo na svět nevrátil, ani „hoden“ zachování pro budoucnost; 1992 Stránského Vědecké radě MU se neozval. dále jde o způsob uložení, evidence představit a doporučit pozornosti a dokumentace předmětů, jejich členů rady jeho inaugurační před- Nábožní lidé věří v posmrtný ráj Je- laboratorní ošetření, případnou re- nášku. Nenapadlo mne upozornit žíše Krista, ateisté nevěří v nic, ale stauraci apod. předem Stránského, aby hovořil ti i oni ve skutečnosti nemají o tom, lidsky srozumitelnou řečí, a nepou- co je po smrti, ani tušení. Vnější funkce spočívá především žil svůj oblíbený „metajazyk“. A to v jejich lidovýchovném působení, se stalo Stránskému osudným! Ale i ateista se vzpírá uvěřit, že v jejich takřečené „extramurární“ zemřelí se ztrácejí kdesi v bezedné funkci. V domnění, že členy rady oslní, „černé díře“ Vesmíru, že po smrti spustil kandidát zostra a sebevědo- nastává pro člověka nekonečné, ne-
86 2016 /05 /02
vědomé nic. Já sám si to uvědomuji there a museological department discipline), etc. Particularly impor- téměř denně, když v rámci připra- as a methodical centre of museum tant was the project of so-called vovaných „Dějin moravské archeo- work, and incited at the same time postgraduate museology studies, logie“ vzpomínám na plejádu svých the establishment of an external approved by the Czech Ministry of mrtvých přátel, kolegů, ba i svých Chair of Museology at the then Uni- Education. The first run of studies žáků! Jako bych si s nimi při těchto versity of Jan Evangelista Purkyně has taken place in 1965. Until the vzpomínkách povídal, zdráhám se (UJEP) in Brno. This project was beginning of the 1990s, these stu uvěřit, že se s nimi již nikdy nese- realised under the auspices of the dies were completed by more than tkám… then Director of the Moravian Mu- 380 learners from Czechoslovakia. seum, Professor Jan Jelínek. The A jak bych měl zakončit tyto moje external Chair of Museology was es- After realisation of an exhibition ti- vzpomínky na pana docenta Strán- tablished at UJEP by an agreement tled “The Way of Museums”, which ského? between the then Rector UJEP, Pro- in the 1970s presented the histor- fessor Theodor Martinec, and Direc- ical role of museology, Stránský Nejspíš asi tak, že bych mu popřál, tor-General of UNESCO, Federico was labelled a “cosmopolitan” and aby tam někde v nadpozemské sfé- Mayor, in November 1994; since the proposal for his dismissal came ře mohl do nekonečna svobodně 1996 it actually began to operate. immediately thereafter. At the end a v klidu a pohodě spřádat a rozví- The Chair Holder became JUDr. he was “allowed to work”, but the jet své, třebas i ty „metamuzeolo- Vinoš Sofka, at that time already external Chair of Museology was gické“ teorie… a world-recognised museological embodied in 1978 into the Chair of authority, originally the Economic Prehistory/Archaeology at the then Assistant Manager at the Institute Faculty of Arts UJEP, at that time VLADIMÍR PODBORSKÝ of Archaeology, Czechoslovak Aca headed by Docent Radko M. Pernič- Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická demy of Sciences in Brno. ka; the Chair of Prehistory/Archae- fakulta, Ústav archeologie a muzeologie ology and Museology existed in the (emeritní profesor), Brno At that time, however, another years 1978–1986 (it was followed Česká republika institution also appeared on the up by the Department of Archaeol- scene: the UNESCO Chair of Mu- ogy and Museology, Faculty of Arts, seology and World Heritage. This Masaryk University – ÚAM FF MU, MY MEMORIES specialised department under the established at the instigation of Pro- OF DOCENT PHDR. ZBYNĚK auspices of UNESCO was founded fessor Vladimír Podborský in 1994). at the instigation of JUDr. Vinoš Stránský’s concept of museology Z. STRÁNSKÝ Sofka, representative of the Inter- was received positively in many (26. 10. 1926–21. 1. 2016) national Committee for Museology countries (GDR, Yugoslavia, Austria, (ICOFOM), and Docent Zbyněk Z. Netherlands, Scandinavia). These VLADIMÍR PODBORSKÝ Stránský. events awakened attention not only within ICOM, but directly in UN- During preparation of materials for I would like to mention only in ESCO, at the instigation of which this article I “browsed” through my brief the numerous contributions by Stránský elaborated in 1983 a pro- memories with real zest. I tried to Stránský to the development of mu- ject of the International Summer recall when it was that I met Strán- seology in our country and world- School of Museology, which started ský, whose fate was quite harsh wide: establishment of nationwide in 1986. because of his bourgeois descent, courses for museum conservators but who in our country and world- (which Stránský himself taught After 1989, Stránský was rehabili- wide ranked among top figures in more than 20 years), realisation of tated and appointed the head of an museography and museology, and the first museological symposium independent Chair of Museology at in fact not only in museology but in in 1965, where he accentuated the the Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Uni- culture at all; of course, I already need for museological education versity, as well as the head and pro- knew a lot about him from profes- at universities and defined the me- fessor in the International Summer sional literature. ta-theoretical approach to museolo- School of Museology, which was gy as a scholarly discipline, found- located in the Rector’s Office of the It was in 1962 that Stránský was ing of the almanac Muzeologické Masaryk University in Brno. He be- admitted to the Moravian Museum sešity in 1968, organisation of an came member of ICOM, Vice-chair- with the help of the museum ar- international conference on museol- man of ICOFOM, Chairman of the chitect Vilém Hank. Since January ogy in 1969 (where he presented his Museological Society, Chairman of 1963 he already began to build up system of museology as a scholarly the Union of Slovak Museums, and
87 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
honorary member of the Union of And with these numbers of muse- Mons. Prof. PhDr. Petr Piťha, CSc., Museologists. In 1993 I managed to ums, this time I mean the respect- Dr. h. c. When I lobbed for it in the habilitate PhDr. Zbyněk Z. Strán- able institutions, it is absolutely Scientific Board of the Faculty of ský (by the approval of the Scien- inevitable that the museums abide Arts, the Scientific Board rejected it tific Board of the Faculty of Arts, by unified rules and principles, unanimously. Even my best friend, Masaryk University, without the mainly if they work with electronic Professor Rudolf Pečman, who nev- academic degree CSc.) and appoint records, documentation and evalua- er refused to do something for me, him a Docent (Senior Lecturer) in tion of collections. declared that Stránský must be sa Museology. The situation at that tisfied with senior lectureship... time was not yet entirely consoli- Respectable museum institutions dated so that this action surprising- have internal and external func- Stránský, however, was advocated ly did not encounter any obstacles. tions. by Professor Piťha, Minister of Ed- So it happened that Stránský is un- ucation in the Czech government til today the only habilitated docent Internal functions comprise the se- of Václav Klaus, who was aware of in museology in the Czech Republic lection of museum items (heuristic Stránský’s profound humanist edu- and he was even close to become function), because not every object cation and disposition, and recom- a professor. is “worth” to be kept for the future, mended to submit the proposal for then the way of storage, recording appointing Stránský a professor to In habilitation of PhDr. Zbyněk and documentation of objects, their the Scientific Board of the Masaryk Z. Stránský I based myself on the laboratory treatment, possible resto- University. So I was obliged to in- strong confidence, which I still have ration, etc. troduce Stránský to the Scientific today, that museology should be Board MU in 1992 and recommend considered an independent schol- External function of museums his inaugural lecture to the atten- arly discipline, as it is in the most mainly consists in their educational tion of board members. It did not countries of the world. We submit- activities, in their so-called “extra- occur to me to tell Stránský in ad- ted with Stránský in this regard mural” impact. vance that he should better speak several proposals, supplemented a human-friendly language instead with abundant factual evidence, to Now I will return to the personality of his favourite “meta-language”. the Czech Ministry of Education, of Docent Stránský. And this proved fatal to Stránský! but there was always somebody who rejected these proposals; may- Stránský with his philosophical and Assuming that he will dazzle the be for ignorance, maybe for the political orientation was undoubt- board members, the candidate misapprehension that museums are edly anticommunist. But at the time began to speak resolutely and only dumps of old useless junk... of communism he tried to get on self-confidently just in the “me- somehow with this regime in order ta-language”. However, the board So it happened that the Czech Re- to avoid any problems at work. He members, namely doctors of med- public is one of the very few coun- also knew that the communist pol- icine, natural scientists and phi- tries where museology is not yet icy of selected and supported dis- losophers, were not impressed by recognised as an independent schol- ciplines (including museology) has the speech. On the contrary. The arly discipline. We know that in the its advantages, even in comparison self-confident behaviour of Strán- world there are thousands of muse- with “free”, above all western coun- ský rather irritated them. The vote ums, of course of various types and tries, where individual scientific turned out definitely negatively for different quality: from respectable disciplines often have to struggle the candidate. institutions to “panoptical” ameni- hard for their existence. In this ties, such as, for example, the “Mad- sense he also made himself heard The then Rector of the Masaryk am Tussaud’s Wax Museum” based several times quite loud in the fo- University, Professor Eduard in London, with many branches rum of the Faculty of Arts. There- Schmidt, reproached me then sharp- from Hong Kong over Las Vegas, fore it was in no way surprising ly that I should not have even con- New York to as far as Vienna, or that many members of the Scientific sidered the professorship of Strán- museums dedicated to individual Board of the Faculty of Arts consid- ský, that I should not have allowed personalities (of course of varied ered him almost communist and let him to appear before the Scientific quality again), such as, for example, him feel it in the vote of appointing Board of the Masaryk University, the “Princess Diana Museum” in him professor, which I called out; that I caused damage to the good London or the “Waldemar Matuška this time it was not museology – it reputation of not only the Scientific Museum” in Jaroměř-Josefov, etc. would certainly not come off – but Board of the Faculty of Arts but of culturology, on the proposal of the whole university, etc. I naturally
88 2016 /05 /02
defended myself: I showed to the Most probably I would wish him Rector six clearly positive recom- freedom and piece somewhere out mendation letters from prominent there in the superterrestrial sphere, foreign professors who recommend- so that he can for ever and ever ed to appoint Stránský a professor, think up and develop his theories, and another highly laudatory doc- maybe also those of “meta-museo uments on his international muse- logy”... ological and general culturological renown. I asked the Rector whether I should have ignored these docu- VLADIMÍR PODBORSKÝ ments. The Rector in response only Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, indecisively shrugged his shoulders. Department of Archaeology and Muse- ology (Professor Emeritus), Brno Be that as it may, Stránský did not Czech Republic became professor. He was quite aggrieved; I think that he did not reconcile himself to it until the very end of his life.
So, Docent Stránský has already “gone West” (“as atheists say...”). He went a way which all of us will go one day.
How actually is the concept of after- life in believers and in atheists?
The living people do not know and the dead did neither return to this world nor let us know.
Religious people believe in Paradise of Jesus Christ, atheists believe in nothing, but both of them have in fact no idea of what happens after the dead.
However, atheists also refuse to believe that the deceased would disappear somewhere in a bottom- less “black hole” of the Universe, that after the death comes only an endless and unconscious nothing. I myself become conscious of it almost every day when I am work- ing on the “History of Moravian Archaeology” and I remember the numbers of my friends, colleagues or even pupils! who already passed away. As if I would talk with them in these memories, I am loath to believe that I will never meet them again...
And how should I finish these me mories of Docent Stránský?
89 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
METODICKÉ A INFORMAČNÍ TEXTY/ METHODICAL AND INFORMATIVE TEXTS
FENOMÉN „STRÁNSKÝ“ V MÚZEJNÍCTVE
NA SLOVENSKU DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-12
MARCEL LALKOVIČ †
V kontexte trendov, ktoré dnes koškolsky vzdelaní pracovníci neod- dominujú v našom múzejníctve, vádzali v intenciách múzea prácu, si mnohí v dostatočnej miere ne- ktorá mala byť charakteristickou uvedomujú, čo v druhej polovici alebo dominantnou v podmienkach 20. storočia znamenala činnosť, tohto typu inštitúcie, ale prispô- ktorej priekopníkom a výrazným sobovali si ju svojim ambíciám predstaviteľom bol Z. Z. Stránský. a potrebám, ktoré vyplynuli z ich Nemáme tým na mysli glorifikáciu odborového zamerania. Tu niekde jeho osoby. Ide skôr o zamyslenie sa potom tkvie podstata toho, prečo sa nad charakterom jeho činnosti, pro- Z. Z. Stránský počas svojho dlhoroč- stredníctvom ktorej sa formovalo ného pôsobenia neúnavne usiloval naše múzejníctvo a i jeho zásluhou o profesionalizáciu múzejnej práce. sa dotváralo do podoby, ako ho po- Uvedomoval si, že jednostranné známe dnes. odborné zameranie múzejníkov sta- valo do pozície, že ako profesionáli Činnosť, ktorej sa Z. Z. Stránský vo vlastnom odbore boli z muzeolo- z hľadiska múzejníctva venoval gického hľadiska úplnými amatér- prakticky celú druhú polovicu mi. Pre zvládnutie takto zameranej 20. storočia, predstavuje ako celok činnosti nemali potrebné vedomosti jednu vývojovú etapu. Možno ju a preto ani nepoznali metodiku charakterizovať ako obdobie, pod a techniku takejto práce. ktoré sa významným spôsobom Zbyněk Z. Stránský v roce 2000 na konferenci podpísal nielen svojim konaním, ale Úlohy prírodných vied v muzealizácii životného V intenciách súdobých poznatkov aj myšlienkami či názormi, ktoré prostredia v Liptovskom Mikuláši (Slovenské mú- sa preto logicky usiloval o zlepšenie potom niekoľko desaťročí formovali zeum ochrany přírody a jaskyniarstva) daného stavu. Za východisko po- muzeologické myslenie u nás. važoval uplatnenie takých foriem, V povojnovom období múzejníctvo ktoré by v konečnom dôsledku u nás prešlo zásadnou premenou. priek poznatku, že už v tom čase smerovali k rozvoju muzeológie, Podstatným spôsobom sa zmenili pôsobilo v múzeách nemálo kvalifi- disciplíny ktorá disponovala po- formy múzejnej práce a jej kvalita. kovaných pracovníkov. A sme u ko- znatkami o predmete, problémoch Postavené bolo na profesionálnu reňa veci, pretože práve tejto ka- a o technike muzeologickej práce. základňu a múzeá sa ako inštitúcie tegórii zamestnancov problematika Domnieval sa, že treba zaistiť jej zaradili medzi politicko-výchovné muzeologického prístupu v kontexte odborové uplatnenie v rámci vyso- a kultúrne zariadenia, čím sa opäť ich práce nehovorila vôbec nič. koškolského štúdia, pretože jedine dostali do zorného uhla spoločen- touto formou mohli pracovníci ského záujmu. Tento vcelku úspešný V tomto smere to bol najmä múzeí získať potrebné odborné rozvoj sa však uskutočňoval najmä Z. Z. Stránský, ktorý si veľmi dobre vzdelanie. Až to vytváralo priestor v rovine praxe, a tá vychádzala uvedomoval, že pracovníci, ktorí k tomu, aby sa zainteresovali na z dobových podmienok a potrieb. sa rozhodli pre prácu v múzeách, muzeologickom prístupe v kontex- To viedlo k tomu, že sa už v pod- neboli ani ako ľudia s vysokoškol- te jednotlivých vedných disciplín statne menšej miere venovala skou kvalifikáciou vyškolení pre angažovaných v múzeách a získali pozornosť teoretickej interpretácii charakter takto zameranej činnosti. i potrebné teoretické predpoklady a zovšeobecňovaniu niektorých, S určitou nadsázkou možno pove- k vlastnej múzejnej činnosti. z múzejného hľadiska metodicky dať, že zo spoločenského hľadiska významných skutočností. A to i na- išlo o akúsi formu luxusu, keď vyso-
90 2016 /05 /02
Takto zamerané úsilie Z. Z. Strán- Študijný beh Počet absolventov ského našlo napokon svoj výraz vo vytvorení externej katedry muzeo- Zo Slovenska lógie ako súčasti Filozofickej fakulty Číslo Doba trvania Celkom Univerzity J. E. Purkyně v Brne Počet % v roku 1963. Katedra muzeológie I. 1965–1968 10 - - vedená J. Jelínkom, riaditeľom Moravského múzea v Brne sa po II. 1967–1970 11 4 36 svojom založení začala venovať III. 1969–1972 12 6 50 koncepčným a obsahovým otázkam štúdia a pripravovať projekt post- IV. 1971–1974 10 1 10 graduálneho štúdia muzeológie pre V. 1973–1976 13 6 46 pracovníkov múzeí. Projekt z väč- šej časti pripravil Z. Z. Stránský. VI. 1978–1981 24 8 33 Postgraduálne štúdium sa podľa neho považovalo za hlavnú formu VII. 1980–1983 24 9 37 ďalšieho vzdelávania vysokoškol- VIII. 1981–1984 23 5 22 ských odborníkov, ktorí pôsobili v múzeách za predpokladu, že po- IX. 1984–1987 24 2 8 trebovali nadobudnúť vedomosti X. 1986–1989 22 7 32 v problematike, na riešení ktorej sa podieľali svojim pracovným zarade- XI. 1988–1991 23 4 17 ním v múzeu. XII. 1990–1993 19 9 47 Postgraduálne štúdium muzeoló- XIII. 1992–1995 10 2 20 gie a slovenské múzeá Celkom 225 63 28 Za dobu svojej existencie katedra prešla rôznymi zmenami, avšak jej zriadením vznikla báza, kde strane dokumentuje poznatok, že covného zaradenie, predstavovala sa v jednotlivých študijných be- počas 13 študijných behov v rokoch základný prvok činnosti tohto hoch zabezpečovala muzeologická 1965–1995 postgraduálnu formu pracoviska, bolo tu ešte niečo, čo výučba pre pracovníkov múzeí. brnianskeho štúdia absolvovalo aj celkom prirodzene vyplynulo z jeho Kľúčovou postavou katedry, ktorá 65 pracovníkov slovenských múzeí existencie. Po vzniku katedry za spočiatku existovala ako súčasť Mu- a ďalších inštitúcií. Neostalo však ďalší dôsledok jej činnosti treba zeologického oddelenia Moravského len pri tom. Do procesu výučby sa považovať i postupné kreovanie mu- múzea, sa stal Z. Z. Stránský. Už zásluhou Z. Z. Stránského zapojili zeologického myslenia. Dnes by sme v druhom študijnom behu záujem aj niektorí poprední slovenskí mú- to mohli charakterizovať ako vý- o túto formu štúdia prejavili aj pra- zejníci. V začiatkoch participovali znamný názorový prúd v kontexte covníci múzeí zo Slovenska. Týmto najmä na prednáškach v kontexte muzeologickej problematiky, ktorý krokom sa reálne začala napĺňať dejín slovenského múzejníctva. sa tu začal udomácňovať v inten- požiadavka Š. Mruškoviča, ktorý sa Neskôr ich rady rozšírili aj niekoľ- ciách nových poznatkov. Nesvedčí v roku 1965 vyslovil za to, aby prá- kí absolventi štúdia zo Slovenska. o tom len charakter muzeologickej ca katedry mala dosah aj na Sloven- V takomto duchu prebiehal tento výučby, ale i mnohé záverečné prá- sko, pretože v českých i slovenských proces kontinuálne a prakticky po ce, či tendencie, ktoré smerovali krajoch v súčasnom období rozvoja celú dobu existencie postgraduálnej k jej teoretickému postihnutiu. V ta- muzeálnej práce riešime spoločné formy brnianskeho muzeologického kýchto dimenziách sa existencia teoretické problémy. štúdia. katedry vnímala aj v podmienkach slovenského múzejníctva, čo bol tiež Nasledujúce obdobie jednoznačne Po zriadení katedry sa predovšet- jeden z dôvodov, prečo takmer jed- ukázalo, že sa existencia tejto formy kým zásluhou Z. Z. Stránského nu tretinu absolventov postgraduál- muzeologického štúdia už od sa- etablovalo v Brne niečo, čo dovte- neho štúdia predstavujú pracovníci motného začiatku vnímala na Slo- dajšia múzejná prax nepoznala. zo slovenských inštitúcií. vensku pozitívne. Záujem o štúdium I keď výučba muzeológie pre tých, nachádzal v slovenských múzeách čo prejavovali záujem o rozšírenie Ďalší rozmer, ktorý vyplynul z exis- primeranú odozvu, čo na jednej svojho obzoru nad rámec ich pra- tencie brnianskeho muzeologického
91 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
pracoviska, znamenal v podmien- organizácia, nezávislá na štátnych ných stanov Zväzu členom výboru kach slovenského múzejníctva aj a politických štruktúrach. Spoloč- mohol stať len zamestnanec niekto- rozšírenie dovtedajších pracovných nosť mala v kontexte vtedajšieho rého z členských múzeí, muselo sa kontaktov. Prejavovalo sa to najmä štátu federálnu pôsobnosť. V jej najprv doriešiť jeho postavenie. Zá- tým, že zvyčajne tam, kde v sloven- deväťčlennom výbore, ktorého sluhou predsedu Zväzu L. Olexu sa ských múzeách pracovali absolventi predsedom sa stal Z. Z. Stránský, Z. Z. Stránský stal zamestnancom postgraduálneho štúdia, začal sa mali slovenskí múzejníci paritné Východoslovenského múzea v Koši- vytvárať reálny priestor pre vzájom- zastúpenie. Zúčastňovali sa jeho ciach a následne ho výkonný výbor nú spoluprácu. A nešlo len o otázky, zasadnutí a spolupodieľali sa aj Zväzu zvolil za svojho podpredsedu. ktoré by v širšom kontexte súviseli na podujatiach, ktoré v rokoch s prezentačnou činnosťou múzeí. 1990–1992 charakterizovali činnosť V tejto pozícii sa ako člen príslušnej Neraz sa k tomu pridružili i rôzne spoločnosti. zväzovej komisie v roku 1991 aktív- konzultácie odborného charakteru. ne podieľal na vypracovaní návrhu Vyplynuli zvyčajne z potrieb toho Ďalší charakter aktivít Z. Z. Strán- Zásad zákona SNR o múzejníctve, ktorého múzea, problémov, aké sa ského, ktoré sa po roku 1989 orien- ktorý Zväz následne predložil Mi- tu riešili, či postihovali iné otázky tovali na problematiku múzejníctva nisterstvu kultúry SR. Návrh vychá- reálneho múzejného života. na Slovensku, musíme dnes vnímať dzal zo súčasného stavu poznania prostredníctvom dvoch okruhov. múzejnej teórie a praxe a z tohto V podobných intenciách možno Tým prvým je jeho prínos v činnos- zorného uhla riešil potrebu ďal- vnímať aj spoluprácu, ktorá sa tiach, ktoré súviseli so založením šieho rozvoja múzejníctva, a to s brnianskym muzeologickým a činnosťou Zväzu múzeí na Slo- s ohľadom na význam kultúrneho pracoviskom rozvíjala na prelome vensku. Oveľa významnejšiu oblasť dedičstva obsiahnutého v zbierkach 70. a 80. rokov minulého storočia však predstavuje jeho úsilie o presa- múzeí a galérií. Zaoberal sa tiež prostredníctvom Kabinetu literárnej denie návrhu na zriadenie katedry postavením múzejníctva v spoloč- komunikácie Pedagogickej fakulty ekomuzeológie na pôde Univerzity nosti a riešil z toho plynúce vzťahy. v Nitre. Nemožno opomenúť ani Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici S odstupom času možno túto akti- vzájomné kontakty s vtedajším slo- v roku 1998. vitu, ktorej hlavným činiteľom bol venským ministerstvom kultúry, či práve Z. Z. Stránský, považovať za po zriadení Ústrednej správy múzeí Zväz múzeí na Slovensku hlas, ktorý z rôznych dôvodov ostal a galérií v Bratislave v roku 1979 nevypočutý. Vývoj sa na škodu veci i s ňou. V prípade Zväzu múzeí zohral začal uberať iným smerom. Avšak Z. Z. Stránský významnú úlohu už je dobré pripomenúť si, že toto jeho Obdobie po roku 1989 v prvom období jeho existencie. úsilie malo za daného stavu svoje Patril totiž k iniciátorom obnovenia opodstatnenie. Za predpokladu, že Ďalšia oblasť aktivít Z. Z. Stránske- bývalého Zväzu slovenských mú- by boli vtedy kompetentní ochotní ho sa v kontexte múzejníctva na zeí, ktorý pod vplyvom vtedajších načúvať, mohlo byť aj dnes v našom Slovensku vzťahuje na obdobie po pomerov ukončil v roku 1960 svoju múzejníctve mnohé ináč. roku 1989. V tomto smere s tým činnosť. do určitej miery súvisí aj vznik S osobou Z. Z. Stránskeho do znač- Československej muzeologickej spo- Preto je úplne prirodzené, že sa už nej miery súvisí aj ďalšia aktivita ločnosti v roku 1990. Jej prostred- v samotných začiatkoch zapojil do Zväzu múzeí na Slovensku – medzi- níctvom sa totiž do praxe uviedla všetkých, s tým súvisiacich akti- národná muzeologická konferencia myšlienka Z. Z. Stránského, ktorá vít. Stal sa členom Koordinačného Európske múzeá na ceste k 21. storo- usilovala o využitie odborného výboru, ktorý do založenia Zväzu čiu, ktorá sa uskutočnila v septem- potenciálu, aký predstavovali ab- zastupoval záujmy slovenského mú- bri 1992 v Košiciach. Okrem toho, solventi postgraduálneho muzeolo- zejníctva ako celku. V jeho rámci sa že sa do nej aktívne zapojil niekoľ- gického štúdia. Išlo mu o to, aby sa veľmi aktívne podieľal na príprave kými obsahovo zaujímavými refe- prostredníctvom spoločnosti aj oni programových dokumentov a iných rátmi, bol to on, ktorý v spolupráci spolupodieľali na ďalšom rozvoji koncepčných materiálov, ktoré sú- s Východoslovenským múzeom muzeológie i nášho múzejníctva viseli so vznikom Zväzu múzeí na v Košiciach riešil všetky organizač- v intenciách, ktoré vyplynuli zo Slovensku. Na ustanovujúcom val- né či iné otázky pripravovanej me- spoločenskej situácie po roku 1989. nom zhromaždení 31. mája 1990, dzinárodnej konferencie. Z tohto hľadiska sa spoločnosť, kto- ktoré sa uskutočnilo na pôde Múzea rá sa v júni 1990 ustanovila v Slav- SNP v Banskej Bystrici, Z. Z. Strán- kove, etablovala ako dobrovoľná, ského zvolili za člena Výkonného odborná, vedecká a nepolitická výboru. Nakoľko sa podľa schvále-
92 2016 /05 /02
Katedra ekomuzeológie Začalo sa tak trochu na zelenej a kultúrneho dedičstva. Výsledky lúke, ale už počínajúc školským ro- výskumu sa v apríli 2001 prezento- Myšlienka ekomuzeológie vyplynula kom 1998/1999 sa prostredníctvom vali v Banskej Štiavnici formou ce- z presvedčenia Z. Z. Stránského, že katedry začali zabezpečovať tieto loslovenského odborného seminára je pre múzejnú kultúru a jej budúc- formy muzeologického štúdia: a publikovali v zborníku Museologi- nosť existenčne nevyhnutné, aby ca II/2001. prostredníctvom muzeológie filozo- • Denné magisterské štúdium eko- fické a vedecké myslenie prenikalo lógie so špecializáciou na ekomuze- S výskumom súvisela aj činnosť, do múzejnej praxe, ktorá by tak ológiu. Táto forma bola určená pre ktorá sa týkala vypracovania učeb- reagovala na ekologickú a kultúr- absolventov stredných škôl, ktorí sa ných textov – skrípt, keďže poväč- nu krízu. To si vyžadovalo, aby sa zaujímali o prácu v múzeu i príbuz- šine išlo o novú problematiku, pre muzeológia prepojila so súčasným ných zariadeniach. ktorú chýbala potrebná literatúra. eko-filozofickým a eko-vedeckým V roku 2000 katedra vydala Zákla- myslením a bola nimi takto usmer- • Bakalárske odborné dištančné dy štúdia muzeológie. Po obsahovej ňovaná. V žiadnom prípade teda trojročné štúdium ekomuzeológie stránke boli určené pre poslucháčov nešlo o akúsi novú muzeológiu, ako so špecializáciou na múzejnú kon- muzeológie a príbuzných odborov si to vtedy niektorí mylne vysvet- zerváciu. Predstavovalo platformu a záujemcov o múzejnú kultúru, ľovali, ale len o muzeológiu, ktorá pre pracovníkov múzeí, galérií, ochranu prírody a pamiatkovú reagovala na požiadavky v inten- ochranárskych a pamiatkarských starostlivosť. O rok neskôr k nej ciách eko-paradigmy. Tá v stále zariadení, ktorí mali ukončené stre- pribudli študijné texty Muzeológia, širšom meradle prenikala nielen do doškolské vzdelanie a chýbalo im ktoré sa orientovali na pochopenie filozofie, vedy a kultúry, ale i do špeciálne vzdelanie pre výkon kon- zamerania tohto odboru i systému, celej štruktúry spoločnosti. zervátorskej praxe. z ktorého pozostával.
Aby však takto orientovaná mu- • Rozširovacie trojročné odborné Do rangu vedeckovýskumnej čin- zeológia dokázala riešiť z toho dištančné štúdium ekomuzeológie. nosti katedry spadalo aj vydávanie vyplývajúce aktuálne úlohy, potre- Táto forma sa týkala pracovníkov zborníka Museologica. Jeho dve bovala profesionálnu bázu. Túto múzeí, galérií a príbuzných inštitú- čísla (Museologica I/200 a Museo- bázu nemohli zabezpečovať múzeá, cií, ktorí mali vysokoškolské vzde- logica II/2001) vydala katedra ešte nakoľko nešlo len o rozpracovanie lanie, ale chýbala im muzeologická počas účinkovania Z. Z. Stránskeho teoretických otázok, ale o to, aby sa špecializácia. na poste jej vedúceho. Zborník v na- nové poznatky dostali postupne i do sledujúcom období, ale s pozme- múzejnej praxe. Toto bol primárny Uvedené formy štúdia boli akredi- neným názvom Acta museologica dôvod pre vytvorenie zodpovedajú- tované v odbore environmentálnej vychádzal i v nasledujúcom obdo- cej inštitucionálnej a profesionálnej ekológie a v roku 1999 Z. Z. Strán- bí. Na katedre sa začala budovať platformy, v intenciách ktorej jed- ský úspešne obhájil ekomuzeologic- hodnotná muzeologická knižnica, noznačne prevládla potreba katedry kú špecializáciu pred akreditačnou ktorej súčasťou boli aj zahraničné orientovanej týmto smerom. komisiou Slovenskej republiky. periodiká, napríklad nemecký ča- sopis Museum Aktuell. V tom čase Na tomto základe Z. Z. Stránský, Neboli to ľahké roky, ale treba Z. Z. Stránský spolupracoval s mno- v kontexte požiadavky Univerzity povedať, že i napriek rôznym pre- hými zahraničnými pracoviskami M. Bela v Banskej Bystrici, vypra- kážkam vyplývajúcich zo sťahova- a prostredníctvom neho sa do širšie- coval v rokoch 1997–1998 prís- nia katedry či iných okolností, sa ho európskeho povedomia dostalo lušný návrh. Vedenie univerzity toto počiatočné obdobie zásluhou aj slovenské múzejníctvo a výsledky ho následne začlenilo do projektu Z. Z. Stránského zvládlo na úrovni. práce slovenských muzeológov. pomoci mestu Banská Štiavnica formou zriadenia vysokoškolských Katedra sa dobudovala i personálne Záver pracovísk. Dňom 1. 7. 1998 v kon- a jej chod sa stabilizoval. Začala texte rozvíjania programu ekológie sa rozbiehať aj vedeckovýskumná Ťažko posúdiť, do akej miery by a environmentálnej výchovy došlo činnosť katedry, ktorá vychádzala sme v celom kontexte muzeológie k zriadeniu Katedry ekomuzeológie zo špecifickej situácie, keďže išlo mali dnes vnímať úsilie Z. Z. Strán- v Banskej Štiavnici ako detašované- o nové pracovisko a súčasne i o pra- ského pretavené do činností, ho pracoviska Fakulty prírodných covisko nového odboru. V rámci prostredníctvom ktorých sa ne- vied Univerzity M. Bela. Jej vybudo- grantového projektu VEGA v ro- formovalo len naše múzejníctvo, vaním bol poverený Z. Z. Stránský. koch 1999–2000 riešila katedra ale i názory na jeho jestvovanie problematiku pojmu prírodného a charakter. Objektívnu či skôr vy-
93 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
čerpávajúcu odpoveď snáď na to dá te k 21. storočiu, zborník referátov. Košice: The activity associated with muse- až budúca doba. V každom prípade Východoslovenské múzeum v Košiciach, ums, in which Z. Z. Stránský was však nesmieme nikdy zabúdať na 1992, s. 27–34. engaged the whole second half of jednu dosť podstatnú vec. Bol to on, Návrh zásad zákona SNR o múzejníctve. Mú- the 20th century long, represents in ktorý rozhýbal dovtedajšie stojaté zejník, orgán Zväzu múzeí na Slovensku, its complexity one period of deve vody a napriek nie vždy priaznivým marec 1992. lopment. It can be characterised as okolnostiam prekonával nástrahy OKÁLI, Ivan. Niekoľko úvah nad jedným a period, which was significantly osudu, aby sa napokon dostavil oznamom. Múzeum, 1998, č. 4, s. 22–23. influenced by not only his activities, i primeraný výsledok. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník ma- but also ideas or opinions which teriálů prvého muzeologického sympozia then formed the museological Problematika muzeologického štú- Brno – 1965. Brno: Moravské muzeum thinking in our country for some dia, i keď zatiaľ nám neprislúcha v Brně, 1966. decades. hodnotiť jeho terajšiu úroveň, sa STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Potrebujeme eko-mu- dnes stala realitou a ako sa ukazuje, zeológiu? Múzeum, 1999, č. 2, s. 18–20. Museums in our country underwent zatiaľ má aj na Slovensku svojich STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Nová katedra: a significant change in the after-war stúpencov. Forma, ktorá sa práve katedra ekomuzeológie FPV UMB. period. The forms of museum work zásluhou Z. Z. Stránskeho ujala Museologica I/2000, Banská Štiavnica, and its quality have changed in v Brne, sa zaslúžila o to, že sa do s. 131–134. a substantial way. Museums began reálnej praxe dostali ľudia, ktorí STRÁNSKÁ, Edita. Celoslovenský odbor- to be professionalised and classed v nejednom prípade dokázali vi- ný seminár k problematike prírodného institutionally among the politi- dieť oveľa ďalej ako je bežný obzor a kultúrneho dedičstva. Múzeum, 2001, cal-educational and cultural amen- človeka. Ich zásluhou o. i. vzniklo č. 2, s. 35–36. ities. Herewith they landed in the aj nemalé množstvo rozličných ŠÁŠKYOVÁ, Marianna. Výučba muzeológie focal point of social interest again. a podnetných prác. Je to solídny na slovenských vysokých školách. Múze- This quite successful development, základ pre to, aby aj dnes mohlo um, 2000, č. 1, s. 32–33. however, has mainly taken place at dochádzať k ďalšiemu obohacova- Štúdium muzeológie v školskom roku a practical level which was deter- niu muzeológie ako samostatného 1998/99. Múzeum, 1998, č. 2, s. 32. mined by conditions and needs of odboru a zároveň i k jej formovaniu that time. The result thereof was v intenciách doby a problémov, that theoretical interpretation and ktorými žije. V takomto duchu by MARCEL LALKOVIČ generalisation of some methodically sme to mali vnímať aj v slovenských muzeolog, Ružomberok important facts concerning muse- podmienkach a usilovať sa o to, aby Slovenská republika ums have been paid much less at- sa renomé, ktoré sa u nás vybudo- tention. And this happened despite valo i zásluhou Z. Z. Stránského, the fact that museums of that time našlo svojich pokračovateľov, ktorí THE „STRÁNSKÝ“ already employed many qualified by kontinuálne dokázali pokračovať PHENOMENON AND workers. And here we are at the v jeho započatom diele. root of the problem because the SLOVAK MUSEUMS problems of museological approach did not mean anything to this cate- LITERATÚRA A PRAMENE MARCEL LALKOVIČ † gory of employees in the context of their work. Archiv Ústavu archeologie a muzeologie FF In the context of trends which dom- MU v Brne, fond Katedra a Oddělení mu- inate the present-day museums, In this regard, it mainly was zeologie (nezprac.), kart. 14. běh PSM + many people do not sufficiently Z. Z. Stránský who was very well Seznam absolventů PGS, Seznam absol- realize how significant has been in aware that people who decided to ventů postgraduálního studia muzeologie the second half of the 20th century work in museums, even though na FF UJEP v Brně. the activity, in which Z. Z. Stránský with university qualification, were DOLÁK, Jan a Jana VAVŘÍKOVÁ. Muzeolog was a pioneer and important repre- not trained in such a specifically Z. Z. Stránský. Život a dílo. Brno: Masary- sentative. Herewith we do not want focused activity. With some exag- kova univerzita, 2006. to glorify somehow his person. geration it can be said that from the JANOŠTINOVÁ, Marianna (ed.). Pamätnica It rather is a reflection about the social point of view it was a sort of k 25. výročiu založenia Zväzu múzeí na character of his activity, through luxury, when university-educated Slovensku. Banská Bystrica: Zväz múzeí the medium of which our museums workers in museums did not do the na Slovensku, 2015. have developed to their present work which should have been cha LALKOVIČ, Marcel. Kam smeruje múzejníc- form. racteristic or dominant in this type tvo na Slovensku? Európske múzeá na ces- of institution, but adapted the work
94 2016 /05 /02
to their ambitions and needs which currently solve the same theoretical resulted from their professional problems associated with the develop- specialisation. Here within is the ment of museum work. reason why Z. Z. Stránský during his long-time activity strived untir- The subsequent period has clearly ingly for professionalisation of mu- shown that from the very begin- seum work. He was aware that the ning already, the existence of such one-sided professional specialisation a form of museology studies was of museum workers, who were pro- received positively in Slovakia. The fessionals in their own disciplines, interest in studies found adequate made them absolute amateurs from response in Slovak museums, which a museological point of view. They is also documented by the fact had not the necessary knowledge to that during 13 runs of studies in master such a specialised activity, 1965–1995, 65 workers from Slovak and for this reason they did not museums and other institutions know the methods and techniques completed the postgraduate studies of this work. in Brno. But this was not the end. Thanks to Z. Z. Stránský, several Stránský therefore logically en- prominent Slovak museum specia deavoured to improve this state lists also were involved in the edu- of affairs. He saw the way out in cational process. In the beginnings application of forms, which in the they mainly participated in lectures end would lead to development Zbyněk Z. Stránský in a 2000 conference “The role concerning the history of Slovak of museology – a discipline which of natural sciences in musealization of environ- museums. Later also some gradu- ment” in Liptovský Mikuláš (Slovak Museum of had the knowledge of the subject, Nature Protection and Speleology) ates from Slovakia joined the staff. problems and techniques of muse- This process took place continuous- ological work. He supposed that it ly during almost the whole period is inevitable to teach museology in of existence of the postgraduate universities, because this is the only ther education of university experts museology studies in Brno. way how the museum workers can who were active in museums, in get the necessary professional ed- case that they needed to acquire After constitution of the Brno Chair ucation. This condition made them knowledge of a problem in which of Museology, Z. Z. Stránský helped involved in museological approach they were engaged through the me- to establish something that was in the context of individual disci- dium of their work in a museum. not yet known in previous museum plines engaged in museums and in practice. Even though the basic this way they acquired the theoret- Postgraduate museology studies element of activities of this institu- ical knowledge which is necessary and Slovak museums tion was museological education of for museum activities. those who wanted to enhance their The Chair underwent various knowledge to beyond the scope of This effort by Z. Z. Stránský eventu- changes during its existence, but their job, there was something else ally found reflection in constitution it represented a base where the which fully naturally emerged from of an external Chair of Museology individual runs of studies provided its existence. The activity of the belonging to the Faculty of Arts of museology education for museum Chair also gradually helped to form the Jan Evangelista Purkyně Uni- workers. The key person in the the museological thinking. Today versity in Brno 1963. After being Chair, which initially existed as we could characterize this as a sig- founded, the Chair of Museology a part of the Museological Depart- nificant ideological stream in the led by J. Jelínek, Director of the ment of the Moravian Museum, be- context of museological problems, Moravian Museum in Brno, began came Z. Z. Stránský. Museum work- which began to take roots here in to pay attention to conceptual and ers from Slovakia showed interest the light of new knowledge. This is contentual problems of the studies in this form of studies in the second evidenced by not only the character and prepared a project of postgrad- run of museology studies already. of museological education, but also uate museology studies for museum By this act began to be fulfilled the many final theses or tendencies workers. The project was prepared requirement by Š. Mruškovič, who trying to capture its theoretical for the most part by Z. Z. Stránský. in 1965 strived to extend the scope aspects. The existence of the Chair Postgraduate studies were consid- of activity of the Chair to Slovakia, in these dimensions was also per- ered by him the main form of fur- because in Czech and Slovak lands we ceived in Slovak museums, which
95 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
represented by graduates from the Run of studies Number of graduates postgraduate museology studies. From Slovakia His idea was that the graduates Number Duration Total through the medium of this society Number % also should participate in further I. 1965–1968 10 - - development of museology and our museums in the social situation af- II. 1967–1970 11 4 36 ter 1989. In this regard the society, III. 1969–1972 12 6 50 which was constituted in Slavkov in June 1990, was established as a vo IV. 1971–1974 10 1 10 luntary, professional, scientific and non-political organisation indepen V. 1973–1976 13 6 46 dent from state and political struc- VI. 1978–1981 24 8 33 tures. The scope of activity of the society in the context of the then VII. 1980–1983 24 9 37 state was federal. In its committee VIII. 1981–1984 23 5 22 including nine members, whose chairman became Z. Z. Stránský, IX. 1984–1987 24 2 8 Slovak museum specialists had an equal representation. They took X. 1986–1989 22 7 32 part in its sessions and cooperated XI. 1988–1991 23 4 17 in events, which in the years 1990– 1992 characterised the activity of XII. 1990–1993 19 9 47 the society. XIII. 1992–1995 10 2 20 Another character of activities by Total 225 63 28 Z. Z. Stránský, which after 1989 laid focus on the problem of muse- ums in Slovakia, must be perceived was one of the reasons why almost In a similar way we can also per- today through the medium of two one third of graduates were workers ceive the cooperation with the spheres. The first one is his con- from Slovak institutions. museological department in Brno, tribution in activities, which were which developed at the turn be- associated with constitution and Another aspect, which emerged tween the 1970s and 1980s through activity of the Union of Museums in from the existence of the museolo the medium of the Cabinet of Lite Slovakia. A much more important gical department in Brno, was the rary Communication of the Peda- area, however, is represented by his extension of existing professional gogical Faculty in Nitra. We must effort to carry the proposal for es- contacts in the milieu of Slovak also mention the mutual contacts tablishment of the Chair of Eco‑mu- museums. This was mainly evident with the then Slovak Ministry of seology at the Matej Bel University in those Slovak museums which Culture, or the Central Adminis- in Banská Bystrica in 1998. employed specialists who completed tration of Museums and Galleries the postgraduate studies, because in Bratislava after its founding in Union of Museums in Slovakia these museums began to create 1979. real space for mutual cooperation. Z. Z. Stránský already played an This concerned not only questions The period after 1989 important role during the first pe- which in a wider context would be riod of existence of the Union of associated with presentational ac- Another field of activities by Museums. He counted among the tivity of museums. It also frequently Z. Z. Stránský in the context of Slo- initiators of renewal of former Un- involved various consultations on vak museums is connected with the ion of Slovak Museums, which was professional issues. They usually period after 1989. This is to a cer- dissolved in 1960 due to overall followed the needs of the one or tain extent also associated with situation at that time. another museum, the problems the emergence of the Czechoslovak treated, or other questions of the Museological Society in 1990. It It is therefore entirely natural that real museum life. has put into practice the idea by from the very beginning he was Z. Z. Stránský, which endeavoured already engaged in all related ac- to use the professional potential
96 2016 /05 /02
tivities. He became member of the had a good reason under given con- reason for establishment of a rele- Coordination Committee, which ditions. If the competent authorities vant institutional and professional until the constitution of the Union would have been willing to listen at platform, which was clearly focused represented the interests of Slovak that time, many things in our mu- on the constitution of a chair orient- museums as a whole. Within the seums could be different today. The ed in this direction. Committee he took a very active person of Z. Z. Stránský is to a great part in preparation of programme extent also associated with another Z. Z. Stránský, in the context of documents and other conceptual activity by the Union of Museums a demand by the Matej Bel Univer- materials, which were related to the in Slovakia – the international sity in Banská Bystrica, elaborated emergence of the Union of Muse- museological conference European on this basis a relevant proposal in ums in Slovakia. In the general con- Museums on the Way to the 21st Cen- 1997–1998. The university author- stitutional meeting on 31 May 1990, tury, which was held in Košice in ities incorporated it subsequently which has taken place in the Muse- September 1992. He participated into a project of help for the town um of the Slovak National Uprising in this event actively not only with of Banská Štiavnica by establishing in Banská Bystrica, Z. Z. Stránský several interesting papers, but in two university departments. On 1 was elected a member of the Exec- cooperation with the East Slovak July 1998, in the context of deve utive Committee. Because accor Museum in Košice he also solved all lopment of the ecological and envi- ding to the approved statutes of the organisational or other questions of ronmental educational programme, Union, only an employee of one of the prepared international confe the Chair of Eco-museology in the member museums could be- rence. Banská Štiavnica was founded as come a Committee member, it was a branch department of Faculty of necessary to handle the problem of Chair of Eco-museology Science, Matej Bel University. The his position. Thanks to the Union build-up of this Chair was entrusted Chairman L. Olexa, Z. Z. Stránský The idea of eco-museology pro- to Z. Z. Stránský. became employee of the East Slovak ceeded from the conviction by Museum in Košice and the Execu- Z. Z. Stránský that the existence of It started as if on a greenfield site, tive Committee elected him subse- museum culture inevitably demands but since the school year 1998/1999 quently the vice-Chairman. that philosophical and scientific already, the Chair began to offer thinking penetrate through the the following forms of museology In this position, as a member of medium of museology into the mu- studies: the relevant union commission, in seum practice, which would thus 1991 he took an active part in elab- react to ecological and cultural • Full-time master’s studies in eco- oration of a proposal of Principles crisis. This requires that museolo- logy with specialisation in eco-mu- of the Museum Law by the Slovak gy is interlinked with present-day seology. This form was intended for National Council, which was sub- eco-philosophical and eco-scientific graduates from secondary schools, sequently submitted by the Union thinking and is directed by them. It who were interested in the work in to the Slovak Ministry of Culture. was certainly not any new museolo- museums and related amenities. The proposal was based on the gy, as it was sometimes erroneously then state of knowledge of museum interpreted, but only museology • Bachelor’s professional three-year theory and practice and from this which responded to demands fol- distance studies in eco-museolo- point of view it solved the necessity lowing the eco-paradigm. This par- gy with specialisation in museum of further development of muse- adigm penetrated with increasing conservation. They represented ums with regard to the significance intensity not only into philosophy, a platform for workers in museums, of cultural heritage contained in science and culture, but also into galleries or protection and preser- museum and gallery collections. It the whole structure of society. vation institutions, who completed also paid attention to the position their university studies but missed of museums in society and solved Nevertheless, in order to be able to the museological specialisation. the relevant relationships. With solve topical questions, museology the passage of time, this activi- oriented in this manner deman • The above forms of study were ty, which was mainly pursued by ded a professional base. This base accredited in the field of envi- Z. Z. Stránský, can be regarded as could not be provided by museums, ronmental ecology and in 1999, a voice which remained unheard for because the aim was not only the Z. Z. Stránský successfully defended various reasons. The development elaboration of theoretical questions, the eco-museological specialisation unfortunately began to proceed in but the effort to implement new before the Slovak Accreditation another direction. Nevertheless, it knowledge into the museum prac- Committee. is well to remember that his effort tice as well. This was the primary
97 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
seological library, which also com- That years were not easy, but it prised foreign periodicals, for ex- Literature and sources: must be said that despite various ample the German journal Museum Archive of Department of Archaeology and obstacles springing from relocation Aktuell. Z. Z. Stránský cooperated Museology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk of the Chair or from other circum- at that time with many foreign de- University, Brno, Czech Republic, collec- stances, this initial period was han- partments and he also disseminated tion Katedra a Oddělení muzeologie (un- dled at an appropriate level. the knowledge of Slovak museums systemised), file 14. běh PSM + Seznam and the outputs of Slovak museolo- absolventů PGS, Seznam absolventů The Chair’s staff also was built up gists in a wider European commu- postgraduálního studia muzeologie na FF and the operation of the depart- nity. UJEP v Brně. ment became stabilised. The sci- DOLÁK, Jan and Jana VAVŘÍKOVÁ. Muze- entific and research activity of the Conclusion olog Z. Z. Stránský. Život a dílo. Brno: Chair began to develop, being based Masarykova univerzita, 2006. on a specific situation because it It is difficult to assess, to what -ex JANOŠTINOVÁ, Marianna (ed.). Pamätnica was a new department and at the tent we should presently perceive k 25. výročiu založenia Zväzu múzeí na same time a new discipline. Within the effort by Z. Z. Stránský as re- Slovensku. Banská Bystrica: Zväz múzeí the grant project VEGA in 1999– melted into activities, which formed na Slovensku, 2015. 2000, the Chair was concerned with not only our museums, but also LALKOVIČ, Marcel. Kam smeruje múze- the problem of natural and cultural the opinions on their existence and jníctvo na Slovensku? Európske múzeá heritage. The research results were character. An objective or rather na ceste k 21. storočiu, zborník referátov. presented in a nation-wide profes- exhausting answer might be found Košice: Východoslovenské múzeum sional seminar held in Banská Štia- in the future. Anyway, we must ne v Košiciach, 1992, pp. 27–34. vnica in 2001 and published in the ver forget a quite important fact. It Návrh zásad zákona SNR o múzejníctve. proceedings volume Museologica was him who put the stagnant wa- Múzejník, orgán Zväzu múzeí na Sloven- II/2001. ters in motion and despite not very sku, marec 1992. favourable conditions overcame the OKÁLI, Ivan. Niekoľko úvah nad jedným Research was also related to an pitfalls of destiny to achieve eventu- oznamom. Múzeum, 1998, č. 4, pp. 22–23. activity concerning the elaboration ally an appropriate result. STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. (ed.). Sborník ma- of teaching textbooks, since most of teriálů prvého muzeologického sympozia the content represented new topics The problem of museology stud- Brno – 1965. Brno: Moravské muzeum and the necessary literature was ies, even though we are not yet in v Brně, 1966. still missing. In 2000, the Chair a position to evaluate their present STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Potrebujeme published the Basics of museology level, became reality today and, eko-muzeológiu? Múzeum, 1999, č. 2, studies. Their content was intended as it becomes obvious, they have pp. 18–20. for students of museology and rela supporters in Slovakia as well. The STRÁNSKÝ, Zbyněk Z. Nová katedra: kate- ted disciplines and those interested form, which thanks to Z. Z. Strán- dra ekomuzeológie FPV UMB. Museologi- in museum culture, preservation ský became established in Brno, has ca I/2000, Banská Štiavnica, pp. 131–134. of nature and monument care. One resulted in practical employment STRÁNSKÁ, Edita. Celoslovenský odborný year later the textbook Museology of people who in many cases were seminár k problematike prírodného was published, which was focused able to see much further ahead than a kultúrneho dedičstva. Múzeum, 2001, on understanding the specialisation the ordinary human horizon allows. č. 2, pp. 35–36. of this discipline and the system on They also produced many varied ŠÁŠKYOVÁ, Marianna. Výučba muzeo- which it was built. and stimulating works. It is a solid lógie na slovenských vysokých školách. base on which museology as an in- Múzeum, 2000, č. 1, pp. 32–33. The scientific and research activity dependent discipline can be further Štúdium muzeológie v školskom roku of the Chair also included pub- enriched and formed in accordance 1998/99. Múzeum, 1998, č. 2, p. 32. lishing of the periodical volumes with the overall situation and the Museologica. Two numbers (Muse- problems with which it deals. In ologica I/2001 and Museologica such a spirit we should perceive it MARCEL LALKOVIČ II/2001) were still issued by the as well in Slovak conditions and museologist, Ružomberok Chair when Z. Z. Stránský was the we should strive that the reputa- Slovak Republic Chair Holder. The periodical has tion, which Z. Z. Stránský helped also been published in the subse- to build up in our country, finds its quent period, but with modified followers, who would continue his title Acta museologica. The Chair work. began to build up a valuable mu-
98 2016 /05 /02
METODICKÉ A INFORMAČNÍ TEXTY/ METHODICAL AND INFORMATIVE TEXTS
ZBYNĚK ZBYSLAV STRÁNSKÝ:
ŽIVOT A DÍLO DOI: 10.5817/MuB2016-2-13
PAVEL HOLMAN
Když se řekne československá mu- zeologie 2. poloviny 20. století, zna- lým se vybaví zejména tři osobnos- ti, které zde zakládaly a rozvíjely muzeologii jako vědní obor, ale také výukový obor na vysokých ško- lách – Jiří Neustupný, Josef Beneš a Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský. K nim bychom mohli přiřadit ještě Jiřího Špéta jako předního odborníka na dějiny českého muzejnictví. Bohužel čas je neúprosný a tyto osobnosti nás postupně opouštěly, zanechavše zde svoje dílo a také žáky a násle- dovníky. Bohužel 21. ledna 2016 odešla i poslední z těchto osobností Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský, zakladatel brněnské muzeologické školy, spo- luzakladatel postgraduálního muze- ologického studia a externí katedry na brněnské univerzitě a zakladatel katedry muzeologie a denního stu- dia muzeologie na téže škole. S ním odešla poslední z osobností, které můžeme nazvat zakladateli české muzeologie a jejího mezinárodního věhlasu. Z. Z. Stránský byl osobou, která formovala teoretické základy muzeologie a podílela se také na tvorbě řady výstav a expozic v čes- koslovenských muzeích a památko- vých objektech a koncepcích mnoha muzeí. Své stopy zanechal také jako univerzitní pedagog a to prostřed- nictví svých žáků, které učil kritic- kému muzeologickému myšlení.
Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský se narodil v Kutné Hoře dne 26. října 1926. Ale rodiče se brzy přestěhovali do Pardubic a později do Bratislavy. Na jeho zájmy a pozdější profes- ní směřování měly vliv povolání a zájmy jeho rodičů – matka byla profesorkou jazyků se zájmem
99 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
o hudbu, otec, profesí chemik, se vení vysokoškolské výuky muzeo- studijním programu, jednak o mu- zajímal o dějiny techniky a technic- logie v Brně na filozofické fakultě. zeologii jako vědním oboru, jeho ké muzejnictví. Muzejnictví, resp. V roce 1921 zde Jaroslav Helfert předmětu, systému a terminologii. muzeologie se staly pro Zbyňka zřídil lektorát muzejnictví, který Poprvé zde Zbyněk Z. Stránský Z. Stránského nejen povoláním, ale ale zanikl s jeho odchodem z Brna představil svoje pojetí muzeologie, i posláním. Hudba pak celoživotním do východních Čech na počátku jeho předmět a systém. Upozornil koníčkem. 50. let 20. století. Jan Jelínek na dílo svých předchůdců, počína- a s ním i Zbyněk Z. Stránský si je Klimentem Čermákem a konče V Bratislavě započal i středoškolská uvědomovali nutnost speciální pří- Jiřím Neustupným a Stránského studia. Město ale musel s rodiči pravy budoucích a stávajících mu- současníkem Josefem Benešem. Pre- opustit na začátku 2. světové vál- zejních pracovníků na práci v mu- zentoval rovněž názory zahranič- ky, kdy se přestěhovali do Prahy. zeích, na což je speciální studium ních muzeologů, jako byl Georges Zde také dokončil střední školu. Po jednotlivých vědních oborů zastou- Henri Riviére, Alma S. Wittlin, skončení války, v roce 1946, nastou- pených v muzeích nepřipraví. Proto H. A. Konnr aj. Na základě srovnání pil na Filozofickou fakultu Karlovy usilovali o otevření takového studia přístupů konstatuje, že předmětem univerzity, obor filozofie a historie. v Brně. Po jednáních s vedením zájmu muzeologie nemohou být jen Studia ukončil v roce 1950. Kromě Univerzity Jana Evangelisty Pur- muzea, ale i další formy sběratelství toho také vystudoval externě mu- kyně a vedením Filozofické fakulty a speciálního přístupu lidí ke sku- zikologii na Masarykově univerzitě UJEP schválily vědecké rady těchto tečnosti. v Brně. Po skončení studia nastoupil institucí otevření postgraduálního do muzea v České Brodě a poté do studia muzeologie a zřízení externí Svoje pojetí muzeologie Stránský Muzea Antonína Dvořáka (součást katedry muzeologie. Dalšími jedná- pak prezentoval v několika vydá- Národního muzea). Zároveň pra- ními a přípravou studia byl pověřen ních Úvodu do studia muzeologie, coval i ve Společnosti Antonína Jan Jelínek. Postupně se podařilo z nichž první vyšlo v roce 1972 Dvořáka. V roce 1952 nastoupil do připravit studijní plán, získat akre- (další v letech 1979 a 1984, v roce Hellichova muzea v Poděbradech, ditaci a na podzim 1964 byl otevřen 1993 vyšla speciální verze pro po- kde se stal také ředitelem. Jeho první běh postgraduálního studia sluchače Mezinárodní letní školy zásluhou se muzeum stalo Krajským muzeologie. Na všech přípravách se muzeologie a to v české, anglické muzeem Pražského kraje. Za podílel i Zbyněk Z. Stránský, který a francouzské verzi, česká upravená jeho působení začalo muzeum se také aktivně zapojil jako jeden verze vyšla ještě v roce 2000) a také vydávat odborné periodikum z vyučujících. Výuka v této formě v řadě dílčích článků publikovaných Muzejní zprávy Pražského kraje, studia probíhal až do poloviny 90. u nás i v zahraničí. ve kterém hojně publikoval, včetně let 20. století. Celkem bylo realizo- muzeologicky zaměřených člán- váno 15 běhů a studium ukončilo Zbyněk Z. Stránský stál rovněž ků. V roce 1958 z poděbradského cca 300 absolventů. S otevřením u zrodu významného muzeologic- muzea odešel do Muzea Vysočiny denního studia muzeologie zájem kého časopisu nazvaného Muzeolo- v Jihlavě. o tuto formu studia klesal, a proto gické sešity. Tento časopis vydávala byla ukončena. Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purky- Zásadní zlom v životě Z. Z. Strán- ně, Moravské muzeum a Moravská ského přišel v roce 1962. Tehdejší Důležitým počinem muzeologic- galerie počínaje rokem 1969. Tento ředitel Moravského muzea v Brně, kého oddělení Moravského muzea časopis vycházel až do roku 1986. světově uznávaný antropolog, a externí katedry muzeologie Fi- Vyšlo celkem 10 řádných čísel a 3 a můžeme také říci muzeolog, Jan lozofické fakulty UJEP bylo uspo- supplementa, v nichž svoje články Jelínek v rámci organizačních změn řádání muzeologického symposia publikovala řada předních našich v muzeu zřídil také muzeologické v roce 1965. Účastnila se ho řada i zahraničních muzeologů. Z po- oddělení. To mělo plnit funkci me- osobností české a slovenské muzeo- hledu výuky muzeologie v Brně je todického, teoretického a dokumen- logie a muzejnictví, včetně nestora zajímavé II. Supplementum z roku tačního centra a Zbyněk Z. Stránský oboru Jiřího Neustupného. Zásadní 1974, celé věnované historii výuky se stal jeho pracovníkem. Zde mohl příspěvky přednesl Jan Jelínek, od roku 1963, včetně studijních plně uplatnit a rozvíjet muzeologii který hovořil o potřebě muzeologie plánů. Toto číslo vyšlo i v angličtině jako vědu. pro muzejnictví a její výuce na vy- a ruštině. Muzeologické sešity ve sokých školách, a zejména Zbyněk své době sehrály důležitou roli Hned po příchodu na muzeologické Z. Stránský. Ten ve svých příspěv- muzeologického teoretického oddělení se zapojil do aktivit na cích hovořil ve dvou rovinách – časopisu, který doposud u nás poli muzeologie, které rozvíjel Jan jednak o muzeologii jako vysoko- nevycházel. Bohužel, pokusy o jeho Jelínek. Předně to bylo znovuobno- školském studijním oboru a jeho
100 2016 /05 /02
restart v první polovině 90. let to umožnilo vytvořit mezinárodní univerzitě, ani na práci v muzeolo- skončily neúspěchem. projekt školy, která by zahraničním gickém oddělení Moravského mu- účastníkům prezentovala výsledky zea. V Moravském muzeu postupně Díky publikační činnosti Stránského brněnské muzeologie a také sem budoval odbornou muzeologickou muzeologie vešla do širšího povědo- přivedla zahraniční muzeology, knihovnu, do které získával jak mí odborné veřejnosti u nás i v za- kteří by prezentovali svoje názory české publikace a časopisy, tak i za- hraničí a umožnila mu se zapojit do a svoje pojetí oboru. Projekt byl hraniční tituly. V těch případech, řady mezinárodních aktivit. Ať již připravován pod záštitou UNESCO kdy nebylo možné získat knihu na půdě ICOMu nebo v roce 1977 od roku 1983. V roce 1986 pak samotnou, byly pořizovány foto- založeného ICOFOMu, tedy výboru byla zřízena Mezinárodní letní škola kopie. Týkalo se to zejména starší pro muzeologii (zakladatelskými muzeologie – International Summer a staré muzeologické literatury, osobnostmi byli např. Jan Jelínek, School of Museology (ISSOM) a byl počínaje Samuelem Quicchenber- Peter van Mensch, Vinoš Sofka aj.). otevřen první běh základního kur- gem, Johannem Danielem Majorem, Z pověření Ministerstva kultury se zu, který měl posluchačům formou Casparem Friedrichem Neickeliem od roku 1978 podílel na práci me- přednášek, cvičení a exkurzí pre- atd. Vznikla tak cenná sbírka mu- zinárodního týmu připravujícího zentovat celý systém muzeologie. zeologické literatury od nejstarší slovník Dictionarium museologicum, Zpočátku vytvářel pro účastníky známé (Quicchenbergovo Inscrip- který pak vyšel v roce 1983. Práce jisté překážky tehdejší režim, ale tiones vel tituli theatri amplissimi trvala několik let a přípravný tým škola fungovala a brzy si v zahra- z roku 1565) až po 20. století. Další vydával průběžné zpravodaje, kde ničí získala značné renomé. Obsa- cennou sbírku, kterou Z. Z. Stránský byly prezentovány aktuální problé- hovou náplň školy a výběr zahra- budoval, tvoří soubor diapozitivů, my a výsledky. Výsledný slovník byl ničních přednášejících připravoval zachycující dobovou podobu nakonec koncipován jako překla- Zbyněk Z. Stránský (po roce 1989 československých a zahraničních dový. Vedoucím jazykem byla ang- se na tom v některých případech muzeí, nebo soubor diapozitivů ličtina. K anglickému termínu pak podílel i Vinoš Sofka), organizační zachycující podobu historických byl přiřazen ekvivalent v dalších stránku měla na starosti pracovnice sbírek, doprovázejících přednášky 19 jazycích. Na české části pracoval Sekretariátu ISSOM, kterých se na z dějin sběratelství a muzejnictví. právě Zbyněk Z. Stránský a Oskar tomto místě vystřídalo několik. Od Muzeologické oddělení bylo Brůža. Na konci knihy pak byl zku- roku 1986 se každý rok uskutečnil také teoretickým a metodickém šební výkladový slovník některých jeden běh základního kurzu. Od pracovištěm, na kteréžto činnosti termínů. Předpokládalo se, že právě roku 1994 navrhl Z. Z. Stránský, se Stránský také podílel. Po na výkladovém muzeologickém na základě ohlasů od posluchačů, jeho odchodu na Masarykovu slovníku bude mezinárodní tým pořádat i kurzy speciální, zaměřené univerzitu muzeologické oddělení dále pracovat. Bohužel se členové např. na muzejní management, mu- postupně zaniklo, vytvořené fondy nedokázali shodnout na tom, jak po- zejní výstavnictví a sbírkotvornou byly ale převedeny do Knihovny kračovat a činnost týmu byla ukon- činnost. Od tohoto roku se každo- Moravského zemského muzea. čena. Muzeologický terminologický ročně pořádal buď základní kurz výkladový slovník je dodnes restem, a jeden specializační, nebo dva spe- Z. Z. Stránský se také snažil rozvíjet který teoretická muzeologie má. cializační. Někteří posluchači absol- výuku postgraduálního studia mu- Ve svých publikacích se o základní vovali i více kurzů. Byli i tací, kteří zeologie. Zejména v sedmdesátých terminologii pokoušel i Z. Z. Strán- ukončili všechny vypisované kurzy. letech prošel výukový program ně- ský, ale samostatný slovník nevydal. ISSOM byla úspěšná škola, které se kterými reformami a byla posílena Ten publikoval nakonec Josef Beneš zúčastnili posluchači a vyučující ze zejména teoretická výuka. Snahy pod názvem Muzeologický slovník, všech kontinentů, vyjma Austrálie, akreditovat také denní výuku muze- ale ten zapadl a širšího ohlasu se a jak jsem uvedl výše, někteří přije- ologie zatím vycházely naprázdno. nedočkal. Pokusy o slovník najdeme li několikrát jako studenti, ale také To se Zbyňku Z. Stránskému poda- v zahraničí, kde v některých zemích nejprve jako studenti a následně řilo až po roce 1989. V roce 1992 takovéto slovníky vyšly. Od počát- i vyučující. Po odchodu Z. Z. Strán- bylo akreditováno denní studium ku 90. let 20. století na takovémto ského na Slovensko, na Univerzitu muzeologie a založena Katedra slovníku pracuje francouzský muze- Mateja Bela, se ve vedení školy vy- muzeologie. Studium bylo již tehdy olog Andrée Desvallées a jeho tým. střídali Krasimir Damjanov, Vinoš koncipováno jako dvoustupňové, Výsledek byl nedávno publikován. Sofka a Jan Dolák. Poslední kurs se bakalářské a na to navazující magi- pak uskutečnil v roce 2000. sterské, což bylo tehdy na českých Mezinárodní renomé Z. Z. Strán- ského a brněnské muzeologické Z. Z. Stránský nezapomínal ani školy bylo značné. Z. Z. Stránskému na výuku muzeologie na brněnské
101 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
vysokých školách neobvyklé, ale ších evropských zemích. K osmde- away, leaving here their work as brzy se tento systém stal standar- sátinám Z. Z. Stránského je uspořá- well as disciples and followers. It dem. V roce 1993 pak byl otevřen dána v Technickém muzeu v Brně is sad enough that on 21 January první ročník bakalářského studia mezinárodní konference, která má 2016 passed away the last of these a první ročník magisterského studia připomenout jeho dílo, ale také pre- personalities, Zbyněk Zbyslav (do něj nastoupili absolventi muzeo- zentovat nové směry v muzeologii. Stránský, founder of the Brno mu- logie ze Slezské univerzity, kde bylo Referáty zde přednesla řada jeho seological school, co-founder of tehdy pouze bakalářské studium). spolupracovníků a žáků. postgraduate museology studies Od té doby se výuka muzeologie and external Chair at the Brno uni- stále rozvíjí. Již Z. Z. Stránský za- Postupně se ale Zbyněk Zbyslav versity, and founder of the Chair of čal budovat nezbytnou základnu Stránský stahoval z veřejného ži- Museology and full-time museology každého vysokoškolského oboru, vota, i díky vážné chorobě, kterou studies in the same school. With jako je odborná knihovna a i ne- onemocněl. Jeho srdce dotlouklo him left the last of figures whom we zbytné technické vybavení. S tím v ranních hodinách dne 21. ledna can call the founders of Czech mu- mu pomáhal i Pavel Holman, který 2016. Jeho muzeologické dílo bude seology and originators of its inter- na katedru nastoupil jako odborný dále žít nejen v jeho publikacích, national renown. Z. Z. Stránský was asistent v roce 1993. V roce 1994 se ale i v odkazu, který předal svým a person who formed the theoreti- podařilo získat také část knihovny žákům v bohaté pedagogické cal foundations of museology and zrušeného Ústředního muzeolo- kariéře, a kteří jeho myšlenky participated in creation of many gického kabinetu (v té době pře- uplatňují v každodenní praxi. Ať temporary and permanent exhibi- jmenované na Muzejní informační je to používání termínů, které tions in Czechoslovak museums and a studijní službu) Národního muzea. zavedl, jako muzeálie, muzealizace listed monuments, and development Tím byla knihovna posílena o řadu aj., nebo v přístupu k jednotlivým of conceptions of many museums. cenné literatury vydávané českými činnostem v muzeích. Jeho odkaz He also left his legacy as a universi- a později i slovenskými muzei od je také dále rozvíjen i na Odděle- ty pedagogue through the medium 19. století a také literaturou zahra- ní muzeologie Ústavu archeologie of his disciples, whom he taught niční. Pomocí grantů bylo získáno a muzeologie Filozofické fakulty critical museological thinking. potřebné technické vybavení, které Masarykovy univerzity v Brně, kte- obohatilo výuku a usnadnilo pra- rou zakládal. Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský was born covníkům práci. in Kutná Hora on 26 October 1926. But his parents soon moved to Otevření hranic v roce 1989 umož- PAVEL HOLMAN Pardubice and later to Bratislava. nilo Z. Z. Stránskému širší zapojení muzeolog, Brno His interests and later professional do mezinárodních aktivit, kterých Česká republika career were influenced by occupa- se mohl zúčastnit i osobně. Účast- tions and interests of his parents – nil se tak různých zasedání ICOMu mother was professor of languages, i ICOFOMu a dalších muzejních ZBYNĚK ZBYSLAV STRÁNSKÝ: interested in music, father was a muzeologických institucí a uni- LIFE AND WORK chemist, interested in the history of verzit. technology and technical museums. Museums, or museology, became V roce 1996 odchází Z. Z. Stránský PAVEL HOLMAN to Zbyněk Z. Stránský not only an do důchodu, ale ještě do roku 1998 occupation but also mission. Music působí jako ředitel ISSOM a také When somebody mentions Czech- was his lifelong hobby. přednáší na Katedře muzeologie, oslovak museology of the 2nd half která byla ale mezitím spojena s ar- of the 20th century, those who are In Bratislava he began to study cheologií do Ústavu archeologie in the know will mainly imagine in a secondary school. But he and a muzeologie. V roce 1998 zakládá three figures who founded and de- his parents had to leave the town na Univerzitě Mateja Bela v Banské veloped here museology as a schola at the beginning of World War II, Bystrici Katedru ekomuzeológie, rly discipline, but also as a field of when they moved to Prague. Here kterážto působila na odloučeném university studies – Jiří Neustupný, he completed his secondary school pracovišti v Banské Štiavnici. Ka- Josef Beneš and Zbyněk Zbyslav education. After the end of the war, tedru vedl až ro roku 2002, kdy Stránský. Among them we could in 1946, he began to study at the odchází do důchodu. also count Jiří Špét as a top expert Faculty of Arts, Charles Universi- in the history of Czech museums. ty, in the fields of philosophy and I poté je zván na různé přednášky Time is unfortunately merciless and history. He completed his studies a akce, jak na Slovensku ale i dal- these personalities gradually passed in 1950. Besides this he also at-
102 2016 /05 /02
tended part-time musicological sent museum workers need a spe- and terminology. Zbyněk Z. Strán- studies at the Masaryk University cial professional training which is ský introduced here for the first in Brno. After completion of studies not included in specialized studies time his concept of museology, he started to work in the Museum of individual disciplines involved in its subject and system. He turned of Český Brod and afterwards in museums. That is why they made attention to the work of his prede- the Antonín Dvořák Museum (part efforts to open such study pro- cessors, beginning with Kliment of the National Museum). At the gramme in Brno. After negotiations Čermák and ending with Jiří Neus- same time he also worked in the with management of the University tupný and Stránský’s contemporary Antonín Dvořák Society. Since 1952 of Jan Evangelista Purkyně and its Josef Beneš. He also presented the he worked in the Hellich Museum Faculty of Arts, the scientific boards opinions of foreign museologists, in Poděbrady where he also became of these institutions approved the such as Georges Henri Riviére, Director. It was his merit that the opening of postgraduate museo Alma S. Wittlin, H. A. Konnr a. o. museum became Regional Museum logy studies and establishment of On the basis of a comparison be- of the Prague Region. Under him an external Chair of Museology. tween approaches he claims that the museum began to issue a spe- Another negotiations and prepa- the matter of museological interest cialized periodical Muzejní zprávy ration of studies were entrusted to need not to be only museums but Pražského kraje (Museum Reports Jan Jelínek. The curriculum was also another forms of collecting of the Prague Region) in which he gradually set up, accreditation was activity and special approach of published many papers, inclusive of gained, and the first run of post- humans to reality. museologically focused articles. In graduate museology studies was 1958 he left the Poděbrady Museum opened in the autumn of 1964. Zby- Stránský presented his special and came to the Museum of Vysoči- něk Z. Stránský participated in all concept of museology in several na Region in Jihlava. these preparatory works and he also editions of the Introduction to Mu- took an active part as one of the seology Studies, the first of which An important milestone in the life teachers. Teaching in this form of appeared in 1972 (the next ones in of Z. Z. Stránský came in 1962. study has taken place until the mid- 1979 and 1984, in 1993 appeared The then Director of the Moravian 1990s. A total of 15 runs of studies a special version for the students Museum in Brno, world-recognised were realised, and about 300 gra of International Summer School of anthropologist, and we can also say duates have completed their studies. Museology in Czech, English and museologist, Jan Jelínek within the After implementation of full-time French language, and another mo scope of organisational changes in museology studies, the interest in dified Czech edition was published the museum also established a mu- this form of study experienced a de- in 2000) and in many partial arti- seological department. It was in- crease and the postgraduate studies cles published in our country and tended to play the role of a metho were therefore terminated. abroad. dical, theoretical and documenta- tion centre, and Zbyněk Z. Stránský An important action of the museo- Zbyněk Z. Stránský also partici was employed in this department. logical department of the Moravian pated in foundation of an impor- Here he could apply museology to Museum and the external Chair of tant museological journal titled the fullest extent and develop it as Museology of the Faculty of Arts Muzeologické sešity. This periodical a science. UJEP was the organisation of a mu- was published by the University of seological symposium in 1965. It Jan Evangelista Purkyně, Moravi- Immediately after being employed was attended by many personalities an Museum and Moravian Gallery in the museological department, he of Czech and Slovak museology from 1969 to 1986. The total of 10 became involved in activities in the and museums, including a doyen regular issues and 3 supplements field of museology, which have been of the discipline, Jiří Neustupný. published contained articles by top pursued by Jan Jelínek. Among Crucial papers were presented by Czech and foreign museologists. them was above all the re-opening Jan Jelínek, who spoke about the Interesting with regard to museolo- of museology studies at the Faculty necessity of museology for muse- gy studies in Brno is the II Supple- of Arts in Brno. In 1921, Jaroslav ums and about museology tuition in ment from 1974, which is dedicated Helfert established here the Lec- universities, and mainly by Zbyněk to the history of museology tuition torate in Museum Studies which, Z. Stránský. The latter spoke in since 1963, including the curricu- however, was dissolved after his his presentation about two levels – la. This issue was also published departure from Brno to South Bohe- about museology as a field of uni- in English and Russian language. mia in the early 1950s. Jan Jelínek versity studies and its curriculum, Muzeologické sešity played an im- and Zbyněk Z. Stránský were aware and about museology as a scholarly portant role of a museological the- of the fact that any future or pre discipline with its subject, system oretical journal, which has not yet
103 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
been published in our country until museologist Andrée Desvallées and dents and teachers from all conti- that time. The attempt to revive the his team have bee working on such nents except Australia have taken journal in the first half of the 1990s a dictionary since the 1990s. The part and, as I already mentioned unfortunately failed. result was published recently. above, some of the participants came several times as students, but Thanks to Stránský’s publishing The international renown of also first as students and later as activity, museology became wide- Z. Z. Stránský and the Brno muse- teachers as well. After departure of ly known among the professional ological school was considerably Z. Z. Stránský to the Matej Bel Uni- public in our country and abroad high. It enabled Z. Z. Stránský to versity in Slovakia, the school was and enabled him to take part in work out an international school led by Krasimir Damjanov, Vinoš international activities within ICOM project which would present to Sofka and Jan Dolák who gradually or, since 1977, within ICOFOM, that foreign learners the results of the replaced each other. The last course is International Committee for Mu- Brno museological school and at- has taken place in 2000. seology (among the founders were, tract foreign museologists who for example, Jan Jelínek, Peter van would present their opinions and Z. Z. Stránský also taught muse- Mensch, Vinoš Sofka a. o.). On the conception of the discipline. The ology at the Brno university and authority of the Ministry of Cul- project has been prepared under worked in the museological depart- ture he participated since 1978 in the auspices of UNESCO since 1983. ment of the Moravian Museum. In the work of an international team The International Summer School of the Moravian Museum he gradually preparing the Dictionarium museo- Museology (ISSOM) was then estab- built up a specialized museologi- logicum, which was then published lished in 1986, beginning with the cal library, for which he acquired in 1983. The work lasted several first run of the basic course which both Czech and foreign books and years and the preparatory team should have made the attendants journals. If a book could not be ac- continuously issued newsletters familiar with the whole system of quired for some reason, a copy was which featured topical problems museology through lectures, tutori- made. This mainly concerned older and results. The final book was con- als and excursions. Some obstacles museological literature, beginning ceived as a translation dictionary. for the participants were initially with Samuel Quicchenberg, Johann The main language was English generated by the then political Daniel Major, Caspar Friedrich and each English term was associ- regime, but the school functioned Neickel, and others. This way arose ated with equivalents in another and soon it won a quite good rep- a valuable collection of museologi- 19 languages. The Czech part was utation abroad. The content of cal literature from the oldest known elaborated by Zbyněk Z. Stránský the teaching and the selection of works (Quicchenberg’s Inscriptiones and Oskar Brůža. At the end of the foreign lecturers were prepared by vel tituli theatri amplissimi from book there was a trial explanato- Zbyněk Z. Stránský (after 1989 also 1565) to the 20th century. Anoth- ry dictionary of several terms. It in co-operation with Vinoš Sofka), er valuable collection built up by was supposed that the explanatory the organisational matters were in Z. Z. Stránský comprises an assem- museological dictionary will be the competence of the ISSOM Sec- blage of projection slides capturing the next task on which the inter- retariat where several workers have the historical appearance of Czecho national team will cooperate. The gradually replaced each other at slovak and foreign museums, or members unfortunately could not the same post. One run of the basic an assemblage of projection slides reach an agreement on how to course has taken place each year featuring the historical collections, proceed, so that the activity of the since 1986. Z. Z. Stránský, based which accompanied the lectures in team was terminated. The museo- on the response from learners, pro- history of collecting activities and logical terminological explanatory posed to organise since 1994 as well museums. The museological de- dictionary remained an unfinished specialized courses which would be partment also was a theoretical and issue in theoretical museology. focused on, for example, museum methodical workplace, in the acti Z. Z. Stránský in his publications management, museum exhibitions vities of which Stránský has taken also attempted a basic terminology and collecting activity. From that part. The museological department but he did not publish a separate year either a basic course and a spe- has gradually declined after his de- dictionary. Such a work was finally cialized course, or two specialized parture to the Masaryk University, published by Josef Beneš and titled courses were opened each year. but the established collections were Muzeologický slovník (Museological Some of the learners completed transferred to the Library of the dictionary), but it sunk into oblivion more than one course. There even Moravian Museum. without finding any wider recogni- were attendants who completed tion. Dictionaries were published all the courses opened. ISSOM was Z. Z. Stránský also tried to develop in several foreign countries. French a successful school, in which stu- the postgraduate museology studies.
104 2016 /05 /02
The educational programme has He took part in various meetings of PAVEL HOLMAN mainly been changed and rede- ICOM and ICOFOM and other mu- museologist, Brno signed in the 1970s and focus was seums and museological institutions Czech Republic laid particularly on theoretical and universities. aspects. The efforts to accredit as well the full-time studies were not Z. Z. Stránský was retired in 1996, yet successful at that time. Zbyněk but until 1998 he still acted as Di- Z. Stránský succeeded with this rector of ISSOM and held lectures effort as late as after 1989. In 1992, in the Chair of Museology, which full-time museology studies were was in the meantime connected accredited and the Chair of Muse- with archaeology and gave rise to ology was founded. The education the Department of Archaeology and in museology was already at that Museology. In 1998 he founded the time conceived as a two-degree Chair of Ecomuseology at the Matej study, namely the bachelor’s pro- Bel University in Banská Bystrica, gramme and the follow-up master’s which operated as a detached de- programme, which was unusual at partment in Banská Štiavnica. He Czech universities of that time, but has been the Chair Holder until this system soon became a stan 2002 when he went into retirement. dard. The first year of bachelor’s studies and the first year of master’s Even after being retired, he has studies (attended by museology been invited to various lectures graduates from the Silesian Uni- and events, both in Slovakia and versity where at that time only in other European countries. On the bachelor’s programme could the occasion of the 80th birthday be studied) were opened in 1993. of Z. Z. Stránský, an international Since then, the museology tuition conference was organised in the has been constantly developed. It Technical Museum in Brno. The was already Z. Z. Stránský who be- conference should have remem- gan to build up the inevitable basis bered his work but also presented of each field of university studies, new trends in museology. Papers namely a specialized library and were presented by many of his the necessary technical equipment. co-workers and disciples. In this, he was helped by Pavel Holman, who started to work in the However, Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský Chair as a fellow in 1993. In 1994, gradually withdraw from public they managed to obtain a part of life, also due to serious illness from the library of the dissolved Central which he suffered. His heart went Museological Cabinet (at that time silent in the morning hours on 21 renamed to Museum Information January 2016. His museological and Study Service) of the National work will live on not only in his Museum. The library was thereby publications, but also in the legacy enriched with a lot of valuable lite which he left to his disciples during rature published by Czech and later a rich pedagogical career and who also Slovak museums since the 19th put his ideas into everyday prac- century, and with foreign literature tice. Be it the use of terms which as well. Grants helped to obtain he implemented, such as musealia, the necessary technical equipment, musealisation, etc., or the approach which enriched the teaching and to individual activities in museums. made the educational work easier. His legacy has also been further developed in the Department of The opening of frontiers in 1989 Archaeology and Museology at the enabled Z. Z. Stránský a wider par- Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University ticipation in activities, in which he in Brno, which he founded. also could be personally involved.
105 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
PRAVIDLA PRO PŘISPĚVATELE
Museologica Brunensia je mezinárodní počtu 5 fotografií na článek (formát tiff, York: Routledge, 1994, s. 316–323. ISBN vědecký recenzovaný časopis publiku- eps) ukládejte vždy separátně. Tabulky 0-415-11287-7. jící původní vědecké práce, metodické značte jako obrázky. Popisky obrázku a informační texty, recenze a zprávy přikládejte ve zvláštním souboru s ozna- 4. Archivní materiál z oblasti muzeologie a muzejnictví. čením obrázků Obr. 1: (česky psaný Plná citace (v článku): Národní archiv Cílem je prezentovat muzeologii jako příspěvek) anebo Fig. 1: (in English). v Praze. Fond 1005 – Úřad říšského moderní vědeckou disciplínu ovlivňující protektora, kart. 534, sign. I – 10 V – 3 – muzejní praxi a seznámit čtenáře s ak- Korespondenční adresa: 1 – Musea v Protektorátě – všeobecně tuálními trendy v oboru. [email protected] a jednotlivě 1939 – 1944. Zpráva vrch- (do předmětu zprávy uvádějte MB – pří- nímu vládnímu radovi von Bothovi s ná- Periodikum svým zaměřením navazuje spěvek + jméno autora). zvem Der Jude Iltis als Begründer der na mezinárodně uznávané periodikum Gregor Mendel – Museum in Brünn. Muzeologické sešity, které vycházelo CITAČNÍ PRAVIDLA: Zkrácená citace (v soupisu zdrojů): Ná- v letech 1969–1986 pod patronací br- rodní archiv v Praze. Fond 1005 – Úřad něnské univerzity a Moravského muzea Veškeré poznámky uvádějte pod čarou. říšského protektora, kart. 534. v Brně. Citace se řídí citační normou ČSN ISO 690. Názvy titulů uvádějte v původním 5. Elektronický zdroj PRAVIDLA PRO PŘIJETÍ ČLÁNKU jazyce. Používejte obraty: Ibidem Idem Webové stránky: Ústav archeologie K UVEŘEJNĚNÍ a muzeologie, oddělení muzeologie [on- Příklady: line]. Brno: Filozofická fakulta Masary- Přijímáme příspěvky do všech rubrik 1. Monografie (u více než 3 autorů kovy univerzity, 2009 [cit. 2014-09-22]. (studie, metodické a informační texty, citujte publikaci pod názvem) Dostupný z www:
106 2016 /05 /02
RULES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Museologica Brunensia is a reviewed Mailing address: 4. Archival material scientific journal publishing original [email protected] Full quotation (in the article): scientific works, methodical and (Subject: MB – articles + name of Archive of DAM, Centre of Museology informative textst, books and author). (unsystematized), file Muzeologie hlavní exhibitions reviews and news in dokumenty, subfile Studium muzeologie the field of museology and museum CITATION RULES (všeobecně). Studijní program: denní environment. The aim is to present a specializační studium muzeologie museology as a modern scientific All remarks and notes should be written (Brno 1994; Katedra muzeologie FF discipline with application into museum as footnotes. Standard citation ČSN ISO MU), pp. 6–19. practice and to inform about new 690 is used. Names of titles should be Short quotation (in bibliography): trends. mentioned in the original language. Use Archive of DAM, Centre of Museology phrases: Ibidem Idem (Department of Archaeology and Journal by its specialization is Museology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk a follower of internationally respected Examples: University, Brno, Czech Republic) journal Muzeologické sešity, published 1. Monograph (book) (in case of more (unsystematized). during years 1969–1986 in cooperation than 3 authors, the book is to be cited of Brno university and Moravian by its title) 5. Electronic source Museum in Brno. EDSON, Gary. International Directory of Web site: Masaryk University Museum Training. London, New York: Information System: Open Services of RULES FOR ARTICLE ACCEPTANCE Routledge, 1995. ISBN 0-415-12257-0. Information System [online]. Brno: FALK, John H. and Lynn D. DIERKING. Masaryk University, Faculty of We accept contributions to all sections Learning from Museums: Visitor Informatics [accessed 2015-03-23]. (Articles, Medallion, Book Review, Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Available from www:
107 M USEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
TIRÁŽ/MASTEHEAD
MUSEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA vědecký recenzovaný muzeologický časopis/ peer-reviewed scientific museological journal periodicita 2x ročně (jaro a podzim)/periodicity twice a year (spring and autumn) EV. číslo/Reg. Number: MK ČR E 20739 toto číslo vychází 17. 12. 2016/ issued 17 December 2016 ISSN 1805-4722 (Print), ISSN 2464-5362 (Online) VYDAVATEL/PUBLISHED BY Masarykova univerzita/Masaryk University Žerotínovo nám. 9, 601 77 Brno IČ 00216224 Czech Republic REDAKCE/EDITORIAL OFFICE Ústav archeologie a muzeologie, Filozofická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity/ Department of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University Arna Nováka 1, 602 00 Brno e-mail: [email protected] http://phil.muni.cz/journals/museologica-brunensia ŠÉFREDAKTOR/EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Mgr. Otakar Kirsch, Ph.D. e-mail: [email protected] REDAKTORKA/EDITOR Mgr. Lucie Jagošová, DiS. e-mail: [email protected] REDAKČNÍ RADA/EDITORIAL BOARD Prof. dr. sc. Darko Babić (Croatia) Prof. Alexandra Bounia (Greece) PhDr. Jan Dolák, Ph.D. (Slovakia) Mgr. Ondřej Dostál, Ph.D. (Czech Republic) Mgr. Lucie Jagošová, DiS. (Czech Republic) Mgr. Otakar Kirsch, Ph.D. (Czech Republic) Prof. Peter van Mensch, PhD. (Netherlands) PhDr. Irena Loskotová, Ph.D. (Czech Republic) prof. PhDr. Zdeněk Měřínský, CSc. † Martin R. Schärer, PhD. (Switzerland) doc. PhDr. Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský, CSc. † prof. PhDr. Pavol Tišliar, PhD. (Slovakia) Dr Sheila Watson (United Kingdom) GRAFICKÁ ÚPRAVA/GRAPHIC DESIGN Bc. Šárka Trávníčková FOTOGRAFIE NA TITULNÍ STRANĚ/ COVER PAGE PHOTOGRAPHY Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský & Výuka muzeologie na brněnské univerzitě na počátku 80. let 20. století/ Museology class at Brno University at the beginning of 1980s (Zdroj/Source: Archiv Ústavu archeologie a muzeologie, Masarykova univerzita, Brno/ Archive of Department of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University, Brno)
108 MUSEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA
MUZEOLOGIE BRNO
ISSN 1805-4722 (Print) ISSN 2464-5362 (Online) MU REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC MUSEOLOGICAL JOURNAL MUSEOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC REVIEWED RECENZOVANÝ ČASOPIS/ MUZEOLOGICKÝ VĚDECKÝ 2016 ZE /05 /02 /05 BRNO OL OG IE
MUSEOLOGICA BRUNENSIA 2016 /05 /02