Museums, being inclusive and welcoming does not mean trivializing proposals

The participatory transformation of the modern museum should not be intense as a chase after distracted visitors, a sort of adaptation to a public that, more and more often, appears unaware and lost (but may it not be, rather, a consequence of the exponential and even reckless growth in the number of admissions, brought about certainly by the effects of mass tourism, but also by the obvious cultural bias that evaluates a museum’s success by its ticketing results alone?). Such an approach, which sees the institution subordinated to the alleged whims of its target audience or to the seductions of passing fads (the advice of influencers, the most sensational displays...), has ended up damaging the quality of cultural offerings and, above all, the proactive role that the museum (like the school, the library, the archives, all the way to public television) can but also must assume with respect to the social context. Being inclusive and welcoming, as well as being “attractive,” does not mean resigning ourselves to an instrumental trivialization of proposals, but rather paying attention to the needs of our interlocutors, through the articulation of appropriate and above all “relevant” initiatives, capable of speaking to the diversity of our audiences, addressing the problems and issues that the contemporary world continually subjects us to. Thus, it is not a matter of entertaining the public with unusual gimmicks, but of engaging in order to transform the museum experience into a meaningful journey (attributing to the word “experience” the meaning of conscious and transformative involvement). Far from demonizing the museum visit as mere entertainment: on the contrary, in a museum it is essential to feel free and at ease, and research in the field shows that the experience of art-when offered appropriately, for example, with the right lighting, with effective stimuli and with clear and understandable teaching aids-transmits a sense of true well-being, to the point of reducing the state of anxiety, with effects that can also be found at the biometric level. So welcome the museum of relaxation, encounter and pleasure: already Henri Focillon stated (in the 1920s!) that at the museum, first of all, one must be happy.

In recent years, the famous “museum temple/museum forum” dichotomy coined by Duncan Cameron back in 1971 has ended up being misrepresented, encouraging adjustments incompatible with the educational vocation of collections: if it was more than legitimate - in the aftermath of ’68 - to challenge the swampy, elitist image that characterized especially art collections, what was emerging was the need for greater visitor involvement on the level of awareness and critical evaluation of cultural proposals. As early as 1972, with the ICOM UNESCO Conference in Santiago, Chile, it came to propose the principle of the “integral” museum, that is, of a museum placed totally at the service of the community. It is worth remembering that it is not only the publics that we should be concerned about, but above all the “non-publics,” the people who do not go to the museum for a variety of reasons: often because of a sense of inadequacy, a fear of feeling excluded and of feeling uncomfortable. The museum should have the ability to be a “place of recognition”: a mirror where anyone, regardless of their status (age, gender, profession, background...) and experiences, can find themselves represented.

One of the most interesting keys to understanding the modern museum, provided by Jennifer Barrett in a 2011 volume(Museums and the Public Sphere, Wiley-Blackwell), is the one that identifies it as a space for the elaboration of political thought, a context for the exercise of active citizenship. Precisely because it is a privileged place of aesthetic experience, of relationship with art, of confrontation with collective memory and history, the museum constitutes an ideal context for the manifestation of free will, for the exchange of ideas and opinions. And this vocation should not be regarded as a recent achievement, but rather an intrinsic quality of the space where critical sense, taste, feelings of belonging, and the ability to interpret and connect are developed. Art literature bears ample testimony to how, since the early modern age, collections and museums were mostly frequented as spaces for dialogue, places where the art of conversation could be practiced. Coming to the twentieth century, in the period between the wars, that concept of the “living museum” came to be established, proposing a democratic version of that inclination, arguing for the civic relevance of the exhibition space and its duty to “participate in public life.”

It is around such issues that the diversification of museum experiences revolves: not ephemeral attractions, that is, aimed at kindling incidental interests; rather, occasions to reflect on our present, on the relationship with collective memory, on identities. Provided that people grasp the importance and authenticity of these solicitations and have a desire to be part of them, the museum can package all kinds of proposals: the limitation I see is not in the type of activities but in the goal one sets oneself and the message one wants to convey. Given that museum collections must be protected in their material and symbolic integrity, I see no incompatibility in principle, but I am opposed to any form of arbitrary manipulation of works of art and objects, whose value as historical documents, as well as products/witnesses of the events (human, artistic, cultural) of communities and individuals must be respected regardless. From fashion shows to gastronomic tastings, cultural entertainment and public debate, the museum can legitimately design initiatives aimed at noting an urgency, a need, a crisis (in the full etymological sense of this word). Precisely by virtue of its being a cultural institution charged with the preservation of heritage, it is a specific duty of the contemporary museum to enter the public discourse on human rights, peace, the climate crisis, gender equality, the protection of the most fragile, and the great processes of reworking historiographical narratives and consequent decolonization. And this participation in the collective dimension needs to be effective, even brazen if appropriate. Heritage is subject to continuous and inevitable processes of reinterpretation: it is right that this should happen, so that the heritage itself remains “vital” and continues to speak to our present. Of such processes the museum must know how to be promoter to guarantor, taking upon itself the full responsibility that is proper to every public institution.

This contribution was originally published in No. 22 of our print magazine Finestre Sull’Arte on paper. Click here to subscribe.

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.