Museums and Culture

In the readings for today’s lecture, we are given insight into the role museums play in the preservation, presentation, and promotion of culture. This is a contentious area of study as the readings have shown, with there existing many social, cultural, and political implications when it comes to the collection and exhibition of cultural items.                                                                       

      In the reading by Gurian, the author delves into the nature of museums as sites of memory. This is a theme present in all of the readings, but Gurian goes into great detail assessing the role that museums play in both preserving and constructing memory through the exhibition of certain objects. Museums are institutions which are socially significant around the world, with much importance being placed on them as centers of education and culture. As such, museums exist as a “social contract” (pg.36) as Gurian puts it; they cement the historical in the present, allowing future generations to remember the past. Gurian sets out to define what “museum objects” are, and how museums are defined by these objects, while at the same time giving definition to these very items. She discusses the fact that objects in the museum sense are generally defined as ‘real’ objects. But this definition is troublesome in and of itself. Real objects are not simply one cohesive group, but are made up of things that are “one of a kind” and “an example of” (pg. 26). With this in mind, the discussion moves onto how these objects are treated in museums in comparison to other institutions such as aquariums and zoos. This comparison brings to light the fact that a collection of “real” objects isn’t exclusively the domain of the inanimate, but can also extend to the living as well. As well it is brought to the reader’s attention that even though certain objects may be viewable in two different institutions, it does not necessarily mean that both are to be considered museums.                                                                                 

      Another area touched upon by Gurian’s article is the issue of where the meaning of an object comes from. Is it the visual image? The historical story? Its cultural context? All of these are important questions to think about. For example Gurian discusses how a bowl which has been labelled as having been used in Auschwitz is immediately thrown into a new world of historical and cultural significance which the same bowl would not have been if it were not labelled as such (pg. 29). This brings light to the realization that in some cases presentation may be important for creating a cultural and historical awareness for the object and the public which are viewing it. Gurian ends her article by postulating that civilized society needs museums as an agent of social cohesion and history. The use of the term civilized is something which bothered me throughout much of the article. It places cultural objects as items which Western/civilized society must take care of; otherwise they may be lost to the ages. This of course means that the appropriation of cultural items will occur under the guise of protection, an issue which has plagued many museums in the 20^th and 21^st centuries.                                                                        

      This issue of ownership is something discussed in some detail in the Catalani article. Like the Gurian article, Catalani centers her discussion of museums on the notions of history, memory, and culture. The importance of museums as catalysts for cultural identity formation is something which is discussed more thoroughly in Catalani’s article. By placing objects into museums, they are given a place in a historical context, which can aid in the formation of cultural identity for those people viewing the object; especially in the case of those in Diasporas. In order to preserve memory, museums are an essential part of the process as many of these items may be lost otherwise.                                                                                                                  Unlike Gurian, Catalani does speak directly to the role which colonialization has played in the collection and exhibition of cultural items from non-Western civilizations, and how this history underscores the Western-centric nature of museums as a whole. This is where the issue of ownership comes into play. If an object, which is of cultural importance to a certain people is removed from their homeland, do those people have a right to request the item be returned? Catalani suggests that collaboration between those peoples and the cultural institutions be bartered, as museums in essence are looking to preserve these items, but at the same time they have been appropriated in most cases under the guise of colonial rule. This seems like an acceptable solution to the questions raised by both articles.