The new definition of the word "museum": a compromise solution?

The process of updating the official museum definition of ICOM, the International Council of Museums, is perhaps coming to a close after an impassable debate that began somewhat in 2016, during the international conference in Milan entitled "Museums and Cultural Landscapes", and which suffered a jolt in September 2019 in Kyoto when 24 national committees (out of 119) rejected, in a public letter, the definition proposed by the then executive committee, leading in the months that followed to the resignation of President Suay Aksoy, Jette Sandahl (chair of the Standing Committee on Museum Definition, Prospects and Potentials), two other members of the same committee, and as many as five members of the executive committee. Thus leading to a reset and restart of the process, under the leadership of a new chair, Alberto Garlandini, who came from one of the national committees, the Italian one, that had criticized the proposed definition.

At that point a new path began, not without effort. As ICOM writes on its website, not without emphasis, the “Standing Committee on the Definition of Museum” formulated a new methodology “with the aim of responding to the need for a democratic and open process of consultation of the National Committees, International Committees, Regional Alliances and Affiliated Organizations that constitute ICOM.” Methodology that consisted of five rounds of consultations, the first at the national level, the others at the supranational level, based on theidentification of keywords that must be accepted by all committees and finally five definitions from which two definitions would be selected from which the definition that will then be voted on by the General Assembly in Prague on August 24, 2022. A process that should put to rest the accusations of lack of transparency and room for discussion that characterized the 2019 proposal. But that there is a difficulty in explaining to the public what happened in the 2017-2020 timeframe is evident even from the fact that, on the "museum definition" webpage, those events are simply bypassed.

Today, the proposal to be voted on in Prague was finally announced. It is this (unofficial Italian translation): “A museum is a permanent non-profit institution at the service of society, researching, collecting, preserving, interpreting and exhibiting tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible and inclusive, museums promote diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally and with community participation, offering varied experiences of education, enjoyment, reflection and knowledge sharing.”

In the ballot launched on May 9, the last one prevailed over the other proposal left in play, which in Italian sounded like this: “A museum is a permanent, nonprofit institution, accessible to the public and serving society. It researches, collects, preserves, interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible cultural and natural heritage in a professional, ethical and sustainable manner for education, reflection and enjoyment. It operates and communicates in inclusive, diverse and participatory ways with communities and the public.”

Two relatively similar definitions, of which the more “reformist” one won out , both of which nevertheless contained innovations over the one currently in force, dating back to 2007, which literally translated from English sounds something like this: “A museum is a permanent, non-profit institution serving society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, preserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.” The new terms that characterize the new definition easily emerge: sustainability, diversity, inclusive, ethical and professional . All key terms absent from the current definition. Terms that therefore, barring further unforeseen shake-ups, will characterize the new official definition of a museum. But not only that: it is also possible to note which terms were retained from the previous definition, and which were removed from the one proposed in 2019, thus the other dynamics of resistance or rejection of certain keywords. And through this analysis, understand the tensions that run through the global museum community.

That much more radically innovative proposed definition, which was never voted on-but, let us remember, approved by a large majority of national committees-sounded like this: “Museums are democratizing, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the past and future. Recognizing and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they preserve artifacts and specimens in safekeeping for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations, and ensure equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people. Museums are nonprofit. They are participatory and transparent and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understanding of the world, with the goal of contributing to human dignity and social justice, global equality, and planetary well-being.” Compared to the current definition and the one that remained in the mix, words like education and enjoyment disappeared , and concepts like equal rights and equal access, critical dialogue or democratization were introduced , up to the sort of concluding manifesto that spoke of "contributing to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary well-being. " Those were precisely the words that had caused uproar in some of ICOM’s European committees, such as the Italian and French committees. Corriere della Sera wrote at the time that “it was precisely phrases like ’social justice’ and ’human dignity’ that created alarm and controversy within the committee.” Juliette Raoul-Duval, of Icom France, complains in particular about the political tone of what she calls a “manifesto.” Hugues de Varine, former director of Icom, protests against the “ideological preamble” [...] Icom Italy lets it be known in a note that it “considers the wording inadequate to define the museum, which historically has played the role of an institution dedicated to the acquisition, conservation, documentation, research, communication and exhibition of heritage objects,” “which are to be considered testimonies of humanity and its environment. Museums are aimed at study, education, and enjoyment and are major players in modern and contemporary societies.”"

And so, despite the clear innovation present in the proposed new definition, the terms dear to the committees that had protested in 2019 remain: “it seems to us that the definition satisfies the dual need to stand in continuity with the previous ones and to innovate them in the light of what has changed in the museum world and in society,” writes ICOM Italy. With one peculiarity, the term enjoyment translated as delight in ICOM Italy’s official definition is translated as pleasure in the new proposed definition. A soft change from the 2019 claims?

The definition of museum therefore will advance, cautiously, making explicit that museums must be inclusive but not democratizing, diverse and accessible but not polyphonic, and, above all, must be concerned with education and enjoyment, but not with contributing to human dignity or social justice. A compromise solution that will be voted on in Prague, but one that will not, and of course does not want to and should not, resolve doubts about what museums are and their role in the 21st century. ICOM, with commitment and effort, is trying to answer them.

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.