Читать книгу Museum Practice - Группа авторов - Страница 26

In the last part of Museum Practice we come to the space in which the products, created by the contemporary museum at work, circulate in the public realm. Though the exhibitions considered in the previous section could also be seen as one of the most obvious of museum outputs, in “Publics” we look at a more diverse and diffuse range of topics – from visitor research and community, to interpretation, learning and public programs, and digital heritage – which explore how these are used, consumed, mediated, and responded to by the audiences that the museum addresses.

It should be clear from the outline above that this volume is structured as an anatomy of the contemporary museum in terms of its conventional organizational divisions and roles. When people learn how to work in a museum, they have to master knowledge and skills considered necessary according to current professional guidelines. This takes various forms, such as workplace-based training, university courses, International Council of Museums (ICOM) curricula, and manuals and books.¹ The professionalization of museum work has expanded considerably over the past two decades, and training programs for museum professionals are not only increasing in number but are also diversifying and adapting in response to a “changing museum landscape” (Livingstone and Davis 2013, 12–13). Professional museum bodies often talk of “best practice” as a clear set of rules of dos and don’ts: do wear gloves; don’t allow board members to make management decisions; don’t sell collections items; and so forth. Codes of ethics attempt to establish the essentials of “good” museum practice.²

An historical overview of professionalization in museums has been provided by Patrick Boylan (2006), who also gives an overview of the role played internationally by ICOM, and nationally by professional organizations: the Museums Association in the United Kingdom, the American Alliance of Museums in the United States, and their equivalents elsewhere.³ Any account of museum practice has to take into account the membership associations and professional bodies that are such an important part of the framework within which museums operate, as well as legislation, policies, and regulatory environment. We should, however, be wary of definitions, codes, and laws, useful as they are for raising standards and monitoring performance. As Simon Knell cautioned, these “artifacts of professionalism” can restrict practice, instead of advocating a “creative professionalism” that is more open to change (Knell 2013). Different professionals in different kinds of museums in different parts of the world do not always agree on what museum practice consists of, and might even see the setting of standards, processes of accreditation, and other bureaucratic guidelines as exclusive boundaries that may stifle responsiveness to change. There may be disagreement over specific aspects of museum work or even over basic principles, as well as over what universal best practice might be.

Rather than viewing museum practice simply as the best way of doing things in museums, then, this volume seeks to recognize the diversity of perspectives, to open up questions and to show a variety of ways in which they might be addressed. To introduce it, I provide some background to how museum practice has been dealt with in museum studies thus far and suggest how it might be better integrated into research on and in the museum. Then I consider the relationship between theory and practice and argue that together the university and museum sectors can collaborate in teaching, research, training, and practice. In the third section I review recent “practice theory” and assess its value for an integrated model of museum studies that is grounded in current museum practice, a model showcased in this volume. Lastly I briefly preview the contents of the four parts of the book – Priorities, Resources, Processes, Publics – which describes the contemporary museum at work.