A Crisis of Authority: New Lamps for Old
by Susan Hazan
Museums are producing electronic scenarios that are enacted both inside and beyond the museum walls; in study rooms, placed adjacent to the collections, in computer kiosks, located in the gallery, and a plethora of activities that are disseminated over the Internet. The digital applications and environments resemble traditional museum practices, in that they facilitate a range of hands-on and minds-on scenarios, but through their flexibility, and relentless clone-ability, they are often able to disseminate narratives more resourcefully, both within the museum, as well as beyond the museum walls. Where digital narratives are employed in the gallery, there may be a saving of human resources. When disseminated online, they may save on printed publications, and traditional distribution. Questioning the role of new media in the museum,
this chapter will look at new media, not just for their efficiency,
but whether they modify the relationship between the museum and the
visitor in any meaningful way. The idea of a single, generic institution
that may be termed “the museum” is problematic. In reality the term
covers discovery centres and ecomuseums, art galleries, and encyclopaedic
museums where each kind of institution conjures up a different image,
and represents a difference kind of experiences for visitors. What
they all do have in common, however, (according to The AAM (American
Association of Museums) Code of Ethics for Museums) is their “unique
contribution to the public by collecting, preserving, and interpreting
the things of this world”
[1]
. The series of dialogues,
described in the AAM
publication, Civic Engagement:
A Challenge to Museums,
that took place between
museums and communities across the
This chapter describes new media
intervention—not as “new lamps for old”, but as new iterations of
traditional strategies of display and interpretation. Looking into
the museum as an Aladdin’s cave of wondrous objects, this chapter
considers museum collections as a wealth of potential learning scenarios,
but unlike Aladdin’s magician who stood outside the flying-palace
crying “new lamps for old!”, this chapter does not prioritise the
novelty of the electronic
experience over the embodied museum experience, nor does it advocate
a band-aid solution for the charges outlined by the museum community
dialogues. New media applications, like their analogue predecessors,
have been developed to accomplish a number of institutional goals
that extend and interpret the material collections. Together with
traditional practices, they facilitate innovative hands-on,
minds-on scenarios, extend user-driven experiences for both the local
and remote visitors, open up new opportunities to contextualise the
museum experience, and generate novel scenarios for life long learning.
New kinds of interactive experiences, not possible before the
Internet, are also evolving for remote visitors such as online interrogation
across a museum’s collections, or a synchronous or asynchronous discussion
with the institution through an online forum or via a videoconference.
I
will argue that new media applications integrated into museum practice
do not seek to either displace or distract from the museum mission,
or to collect, display, and interpret the material collections for
the visitor. Rather, they serve to enhance and extend the museum mandate
in novel ways, and even open up new possibilities, for those who
may have conceptualised themselves outside of the museum, to be able
to find a way in.
Museum dialogues
The museum
as defined by ICOM, the International Council of Museums, describes first and foremost an institution in the service
of society:
A museum is a non-profit-making, permanent
institution in the service of society and of its development, and
open to the public which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates
and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material
evidence of people and their environment.
Drawing
on the ICOM definition this chapter seeks to explore the ways in which
museums address their institutional goals to provide a service to
society. It alsoquestions whether, on the cusp of the third millennium,
society in fact expects, or even desires,
to receive this service in the way it is being offered. The AAM publication represented
a call to action to reflect on how the museum community contributes
to civic engagement and to evaluate the assets museums bring to the
shared enterprise of building and strengthening community bonds. The
publication was essentially acknowledging a time of crisis for museums,
and the AAM seized this as an opportunity to set out guidelines to
re-address community agendas.
Throughout the series of six dialogues between
museums and communities that took place in 2001 across the US in Providence,
Tampa, Los Angeles, Detroit, Wichita, and Bellingham, participants
were asked to examine the role of the museum in their communities,
and the ways in which museums contributed to civic engagement. More
than half of the participants in the meetings were corporate leaders,
educators, social service representatives, philanthropists, politicians,
and other community opinion leaders
[2]
and, together with representatives from the museum,
questioned what it means to build and sustain communities. The dialogues,
according to consultant, Ellen Hirzy, illustrated the different ways
in which community members viewed the museum, and the museum mission
that underlined a capacity to learn and master civil engagement. The
criticisms that the discussions revealed were set out in the AAM publication:
·
Museums are limited by the public’s perceptions that they control knowledge,
expertise, and learning, that floats above or passes through the community,
and that they are not as “public” as libraries. These perceptions
are mixed with enough reality to make them hard to dispel.
·
Resistance from within museums is often disguised by references to mission.
Instead of reviewing mission to ensure its relevance and vitality,
some museums use the perceived limitations of mission as an excuse
to avoid the kind of ongoing self-examination and change that connects
a museum to a community.
·
The same assets that people respect are also liabilities. For example,
museum’s reputation for accuracy and authenticity inspires trust,
but it also endangers doubt about their ability to reflect a variety
of perspectives, especially when they are telling the stories of particular
cultures.
·
Museums’ positive self-image as educational institutions is not fully endorsed
by the community. Embedded in the image of educator is the attitude
that, “we know and want to share” with the museum controlling knowledge,
expertise, and learning. However, the public sees an institution that
devalues their knowledge and what they, too, can teach.
[3]
The booklet,
published soon after 11 September, referred to program-based relationships
and audience development, and essentially revealed how the museum’s
attitude to the (
Clearly the digital museum does not attempt to replace the material object with an electronic surrogate, but instead, opens up new possibilities to harness and to enact reciprocal, user-driven scenarios, as well as new opportunities for the remote visitor to be able to interact with the museum. While the implementation of technology in the museum has been theorised through the rhetoric of the displacement of the treasure house, [5] or as a privileging of information over the object, [6] this chapter looks to a digital museum that neither replaces nor prioritises traditional modes of collection and display, and suggests that new media practices and methodologies offer new possibilities for novel hands-on, minds-on scenarios.
Floating above the community
The complaint, voiced in the dialogues, that the museum is “floating” above
the community recognises that the museum is not as hospitable as we
would like it or expect it to be. These kinds of visitor responses
are hard to distinguish, let alone acknowledge, but to respond to
these criticisms we need to consider both the physical setting of
the museum, as well as intellectual access to collections. The museum
has often been described as an ideological institution, where the
hegemony of the museum is articulated behind the scenes, resulting
in a problematic reading of the museum both for the visiting public
as well as for those who might sense this patronising attitude, but
who never even make it through the doors. The political discourses
of power and knowledge that run through critical literature on the
museum have often been inflected by a Foucauldian reading. Curator,
Andrea Witcomb, argues that this critical reflection has been mostly
concerned with the museum as “inculcating bourgeois civic values that
serve the needs of the emerging nation-state and the dominant interest
within it”.
[7]
All these subtle, or not so subtle, cues and clues
suggests a patronising attitude towards visitors who might then be
expected to absorb historically, or politically driven narratives
evident not just through the display of carefully curated objects,
but in the very fabric of the institution itself.
While internationally known as “The British
Museum”, the institution is more about universal culture than anything
intrinsically British, and in fact bills itself on all marketing material
as “illuminating world culture”. The micro-narratives played out in
the galleries, while impressive in their scope and lavish extravagance,
collapse past and present, and are full of slippages in their historical
and geographical narratives, leaving no time or space to illuminate
land occupation, border disputes, and changing ownerships. The
Enlightenment Gallery, “Enlightenment”, according to the website commentary
“is a rich new exhibition using thousands of objects from the Museum’s
collection to show how people understood their world in the Age of
Enlightenment. Their view was different from ours, but our knowledge
has been built on the foundations they laid.”
[8]
In spite
of this retroactive commentary on the founders of the museum, here
the monarchy still reins over the nations, and a walk around the museum
represents a walk around the world—with
A walk around the
collections presents the opaque meta-narrative of colonial history,
but visitors might be puzzled as to what their role in this scenario
might be when they are invited into the king’s (or queen’s) treasure
house. The British Museum, like its sister encyclopaedic institutions
across the world, offers a range of visitor services, gallery talks,
lectures, workshops, and study days, which serve
both to make the collections accessible, and also to offer an active
role for the visitor, who is conceptualised as someone who has come
to the museum in order to learn something. In universal museums rooted
in post-colonial histories these kinds of anachronous attitudes still
run deep
[9]
and the inculcation of bourgeois civic values are
not that easy to dispel. Describing how these ideologies are inscribed
in museum practice, Sharon Macdonald reminds us how “‘politics’, in
other words, lies not just in policy statements and intentions (though
these are important) but also in apparently non-political and even
‘minor’ details, such as the architecture of buildings, the classification
and juxtaposition of artefacts in an exhibition, the use of glass
cases or interactives, and the presence or lack of a voice-over on
a film.”
[10]
These intentions in fact resonate in the physical
constitution of the building, as the British Museum’s Great Court
exemplifies, as well as in the positioning of the collections, and
it is a combination of these spatial and ideological attitudes that
determines how visitors are welcomed, or not, into the museum.
As keepers of the material artefact, it falls
to the responsibility of the museum management to secure valuable
collections from harm. With security issues in mind, new methods and
rules of behavioural management are enforced through a strict regime
of conduct that prevents disorderly or rowdy behaviour. While security
management is clearly of paramount concern for the institution, especially
since 9/11, demands made by the museum staff on visitors, encrypted
by curators, and articulated by museum educators, serve to produce
power relations that often alienate the visitor from the museum (see
figure 7.1).
Museum authorities often require visitors to
remain within roped off areas, and enforce behavioural patterns such
as no running, eating, or drinking near the collections, or touching
the art works, as the notice in figure 7.1 indicates. These kinds
of restrictions set by the institution may
seem puzzling, for example when there is a prohibition
on pens, but not on pencils. One can’t help wondering how a loud conversation
might disturb a Rembrandt’s oily gaze, and how anything but a reverent
silence or muted whispers would in any way distract from the auratic
magnetism of an artwork. Behaviour is moderated by the watchful guards
on duty in the gallery, who also control items that may be allowed
into the museum area, such as bags over 16 inches, umbrellas, etc.,
as if the visitor is regarded with suspicion as a potential thief
or vandal. George Hein, museum educator and proponent of the constructivist
museum, recognises how the physical space of the museum is critical
to the successful visit, noting how children on field trips need to
“mark out their surroundings” and “take ownership” before they can
engage in the educational programs.
[11]
Setting the stage for a safe, rewarding, and meaningful
experience demands an insightful comprehension of spatial arrangements
and social management, but just as crucial is the intellectual access
to collections. All the subtle clues
and cues that come
together to shape the visit remind the visitor that the museum experience is not one
to be confused, for example, with a shopping expedition, or a stroll
through the park.
Zahava Doering and her team from the Institutional
Studies Office at the Smithsonian Institution have questioned what
it means to be a visitor. Looking closely at the museum experience,
she describes three interpretive categories to summarize the ways
museum conceptualise visitors: as Strangers,
Guests, or Clients,
each, in turn reframing the relationship between the visitor and the
institution. Doering notes how rather than illustrating a sequential
progression from one dynamic to the next, the three attitudes, styles,
and approaches often coexist across the [Smithsonian] Institution
or even conflict within a single institution.
[12]
The first paradigm suggests that when the museum
receives the public as strangers the museums primary responsibility
is to the collection and not to the visitor, emphasizing “object accountability”,
and views the public (at best) as strangers and (at worst) as intruders.
This inevitably produces a setting where the public is expected to
acknowledge that by virtue of being admitted, he or she has been granted
a special privilege. This is perhaps sensed by the visitor in the
opulent setting of the
According to Doering, where the museum sees
the public as guest, this assumes a certain responsibility towards
the visitor. There is a sense that the host wants to “do good” which
is usually expressed as “educational” activities, and assumes that
the visitor-guest is receptive to this approach. Doering describes
a third paradigm, that of the status of the visitor as client, where
the museum is accountable to the visitor, who is no longer subordinate
to the museum. This suggests that the museum no longer seeks to impose
the visitor experience that it
deems most appropriate, rather, the institution acknowledges that
visitors, like clients, have needs and expectations, and anticipate
that the museum will understand, and respond to these needs. It seems
that visitor’s expectations are now more complex and sophisticated,
and members of the public no longer simply see themselves as passive
learners (and perhaps never did). Attitudes to the visitor conceptualized
as client are evident in the range of services that the museum now
offers the public—competitive cafes and restaurants, book and gift
shops, and a hospitable environment from car park to car park. Electronic
study rooms, information kiosks in the gallery, and institutional
websites in the same way perceive of the visitor as client, with his
or her own needs and expectations. In the new media application, however,
this service enhances and extends institutional goals of the museum
mission to interpret and educate, enabling the visitor to be proactively
engaged in his own self-directed learning while providing new intellectual
entry points to the collections.
A variety of perspectives
Reiterating the idea that museums tend to send out mixed messages to their
public, Elaine Heumann
Gurian, museum consultant, comments—“we espouse the goal of enlarging
our audiences to include under-served populations and novice learners
… and yet we continue not to accommodate them: we demand that they
accommodate us and then wonder why they do not visit our galleries”.
[14]
Heumann Gurian asked this provocative question in
1991, and more than a decade later this issue has mostly gone unresolved.
The project described below, Moving
Here, represents one of the ways museums may reach out to new
audiences. Once the archived material that resides in museums is disseminated
over the Internet (and in this case 30 museums have pooled resources),
these knowledge bases may be harnessed to reach out to under-served
populations, serving to extend museum activities in new ways.
Sonia Livingstone, social psychologist,
and Leah Lievrouw, Professor of information studies, remind us that
ICTs (information communication technologies), extend far beyond the
obvious arenas of entertainment and the workplace. Banking systems,
utilities, education, law enforcement, military defence, health care,
and politics, for example, are all dependent on extensive ICT systems
for recording, monitoring, and transmitting information—activities
that affect anyone who deals with these services or activities.’
[15]
. Where the Internet is available, accessing
the bank account from home prevents unnecessary waits in bank queues,
and scouring catalogues to see if a book is back on the library shelf
without leaving our chairs means a better management of our time.
Taking action across the Internet may even save wasted travel and
effort, such as purchasing a new chair without even having to leave
the house. Like other systems, the field of cultural production
is undergoing tectonic shifts, and the print media, radio, and television
are already locating their production either directly within ICTs,
producing websites that indicate, promote or connect to their activities,
or through synchronous applications to connect directly to visitors.
One of the ways that the
museum is already taking up new schema is evident in the explosion
of outreach programs now disseminated through museum websites around
the world.
Much has
been written about inclusion in museum literature, usually in terms
of encouraging new visitors to come into the museum, and museums are
now turning to electronic solutions as a platform from which to embrace
a plurality of voices. Moving Here is an online
database of digitised photographs, maps, objects, documents,
and audio items from local and national archives, museums, and libraries
across the
To return to Heumann Gurian’s query about visitors not coming into
the gallery, we could draw on the French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu,
who suggests that one of the more daunting modes of domination and
the most successful ideologies are those which have no need of words.
Bourdieu describes a cultural field, an analysis of the economy of
symbolic capital, that conceals within itself cultural power relations
that shape the sociology of culture. Bourdieu situates art works within
the social conditions of their production, circulation, and consumption,
arguing that individuals may access and appreciate art according to
the cultural capital at their disposal, and through learned abilities
that have enabled them to master the social code. The institution
of the museum, and especially art museums, embody powerfully coded
experiences, where Bourdieu suggests one needs a studious comprehension
[of iconography of the many schools and styles] to gain intellectual
access to these kinds of collections. Unlike Bourdieu’s connoisseurs,
people who sense they don’t have the cultural capital to take part
in the experience may perceive the museum as a highly intimidating
space, and consequently may not wish to come into the museum at all.
With collections now presented online, such as the British Museum’s
COMPASS, the Fine
Arts Museum of San Francisco’s ImageBase,
or the numerous rich image and text-based resources from museums around
the world, new entry points are offered to individuals who perhaps
might have never even come into the museum in their own lifetime,
but may wish to reset their social and cultural codes and to extend
their cultural capital through online learning scenarios.
Bourdieu first turned his attention to art and literature and the field
of cultural production in the 1960s in
Hands-on,
minds-on: The active participant
One of the key ways the “active visitor” is inscribed in the museum experience is through hands-on interactivity. Quoting Claire Bayard-White, [17] and referring to British Audio Visual Society research, Anne Fahy notes “whilst we only remember 10 per cent of what we read, we remember 90 per cent of what we say and do”. [18] Encouraging interactive participation in this way enhances the learning experience, and hands-on learning may be well served by the electronic applications that can be easily programmed to engage the user, or hard-wired to instigate and monitor a response. Whether analogue or digital, the labels, texts, and various display techniques come together to engage not only the hand, but also the mind, in order to enable access to the intellectual scaffolding of the curatorial message. When active participation
is conceptualised as a minds-on experience, visitors are so engaged
in the activity that they may even forget that they are in the gallery
as they mentally project to other places and other times, much the
same way as we get lost in literary space, or when watching a movie.
These kinds of immersive environments of course can be greatly enhanced
with augmentative technologies, such as those encountered by visitors
to the Foundation for the Hellenic World which exhibits material collections
which are extended by the new media driven activities. In this cultural
heritage institution/museum in
Even without the aid of stereoscopic glasses and tracking wands, curators have used other kinds of traditional immersive environments, such as dioramas and installations, to engage audiences in the galley and pique their curiosity. The electronically-driven, hands-on, minds-on applications may extend these kinds of experiences in novel ways. I argue, however, that through the incorporation of new media activities, the Foundation for the Hellenic World, and other institutions who turn to new media applications are not in fact prioritising “old lamps for new”, but choose to display material objects in conjunction with electronically-driven immersive environments, combining, and enhancing the thematic exhibitions. Working side by side in this way, the objects in the gallery, and electronic augmentation of the thematic content, both work together to articulate the museum mission to display and interpret the material collections.
Conclusion
The publication of the AAM dialogues on mastering civil engagement set
out substantial criticisms of the museum, and the fact that they immerged
from within the museum culture was courageous. The idea that educational
activities could be perceived by some “as floating above” or “passing
through the community”, or that museums were perceived “not as public
as libraries”, were propositions not often raised in museum discourse,
and the AAM publication’s stance on these critical issues should be
recommended. Victor Burgin described how the master discourse organizes
the art field of what is generally thinkable, and in doing so reflects
the ideology of the institution:
The discourse allows the fiercest debates (as
proof that it is open and spontaneous) but cannot recognize dissent—in the dispute over the number of angels who may gather on the head of
a pin the existence of angels cannot be brought into doubt; in the
art world also, to question the existence of certain ideological “angels”
is to commit self-exile, to disappear over the discursive horizon.
[19]
In writing this chapter I was gratified to read the AAM’s inquiry into civic engagement setting out the possibility that the “museums’” positive self-image as educational institution was not fully endorsed by the “community”. [20] Thinking from within the ideology of the institution at times requires the recognition of the existence of certain ideological “angels”, and even under the threat of self-exile I would argue that museums should face these criticisms and seek out solutions. This chapter suggests how new media intervention—not as “new lamps for old”, but as new iterations of traditional strategies of display and interpretation—may serve to confront some of these criticisms, without displacing the material object as the central pivot of the museum mission, as the Foundation for the Hellenic World illustrates. Museums are already actively producing electronic
scenarios that are enacted both inside and beyond museum walls, thereby
offering new opportunities for those who may conceptualise themselves
as outside of the museum to be able to find a way in. Shifting the
point of entrance of the personal narrative away from the physical
museum to the home, the office, or the school may entice those who
perhaps feel lacking in cultural capital to enter into dialog with
the museum, and thus become connected. Once connected, remote visitors
may find a way to make the unfamiliar familiar, and when invested
with adequate cultural capital they may realise that they have already
been initiated into the museum. Through electronic connectivity, remote
visitors may also discover a place for co-created and reciprocal activities,
as the Moving Here web project
illustrates, and realise that the museum values their knowledge and
is aware that they too have something of value to contribute.
These kinds of innovative scenarios open up
innovative avenues of connectivity between the museum and their audiences.
When new media applications are conceptualised as augmentations of
the museum mandate (rather than as a distraction from traditional
practice or as actively displacing the material object) they can be
implemented with confidence to extend the museum mission.
Notes:
[1]
American
Association of Museums,
http://www.aam-us.org/aboutmuseums/whatis.cfm
[2]
Robert Archibold, “Introduction,” in Mastering Civic Engagement: A Challenge to
Museums (
[3]
Ellen Hirzy, “Mastering Civic Engagement: A
Report from the American Association of Museums,” in Mastering Civic Engagement:
A Challenge to Museums (
[4]
Hirzy, op
cit., 16.
[5] Andrea Witcomb, Re-imagining the Museum: Beyond the Mausoleum (London: Routledge, 2003), 108; Olivia Frost, “When the Object is Digital: Properties of Digital Surrogate Objects and Implications for Learning,” in Perspectives on Object-centered Learning in Museums, ed. S. G. Paris (Erlbaum Press: 2002.) 79–94; John Falk and Lynn Dierking, The Museum Experience (Washington DC: Whalesback Books, 1992); John Falk and Lynn Dierking, Learning from the Museum: Visitor Experience and the Making of Meaning (Washington, DC: AltaMira Press, 2000).
[6]
Anne Fahy, “New Technologies for Museum Communication,”
in Museum: Media: Message, ed. E. Hooper-Greenhill (Routledge:
[7]
Witcomb, op cit. 14.
[8]
The
[9]
K. L. Lyons and J. K. Papadopoulos, The
Archaeology of Colonialism (
[10] Sharon Macdonald, “Exhibitions of Power and Powers of Exhibitions: An Introduction to the Politics of Display,” in The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture, ed. S. Macdonald (London: Routledge, 1998), 3.
[11]
J. D. Balling and J. H. Falk, “A Perspective
on Field Trips: Environmental Effects on Learning,” Curator,
23 (4) (1980): 229–40, quoted
in George Hein, Learning in the Museum (London, New York:
Routledge, 1998), 160.
[12]
Zahava Doering, “Strangers, Guests or Clients?
Visitor Experiences in Museums,” Curator 42 (2), (1999): 75.
[13] Carol Duncan, “Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship,” in Exhibiting Cultures, the Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, eds. I. Karp and S. D. Lavine (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian, 1991), 95. [14] Elaine Heumann Gurian, “Noodling around with Exhibition Opportunities,” in Exhibiting Cultures, the Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, eds. I. Karp and S. D. Lavine (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian, 1991), 176.
[15]
S. Livingstone and L. Lievrouw, Handbook
of New Media: Social Shaping and
Consequences of ICTs (
[16]
Livingstone
and Lievrouw, op cit., 10–11.
[17]
Claire
Bayard-White, Multimedia Notes (
Services, 1991).
[18]
Fahy, op
cit., 89.
[19]
Victor Burgin, The
End of Art Theory (London: Macmillan, 1986), 159.
[20]
Hirzy, op cit., 16.
Bibliography
American Association of Museums, http://www.aam-us.org/aboutmuseums/whatis.cfm.
(
Archibold,
Robert. “Introduction.” In Mastering
Civic Engagement: A Challenge to
Museums.
Balling, J. D. and J. H. Falk. “A Perspective on Field Trips: Environmental Effects on Learning.” Curator, 23 (4) (1980): 229–40. Bayard-White,
Claire. Multimedia Notes.
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature.
Burgin,
Victor. The End of Art Theory.
Clarke, Peter. Museum Learning On Line, Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, (2001), http://www.mla.gov.uk/documents/muslearn_printout.pdf
(
Duncan, Carol. “Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship.”
In Exhibiting Cultures,
the Poetics and Politics of Museum Display.
Edited by Ivan Karp and Steven D. Lavine.
Doering, Z. “Strangers, Guests or Clients? Visitor Experiences in Museums.” Curator 42 (2), (1999): 74–87. Fahy, Anne. “New Technologies for Museum Communication.”
In Museum: Media: Message.
Edited by Eilean Hooper-Greenhill. Routledge:
International Council of Museums, “ICOM statutes”,
http://www.icom.org/statutes.html (
Falk,
J. and L. D. Dierking. The
Museum Experience.
Books, 1992. Falk,
J. and L. D. Dierking. Learning
from the Museum: Visitor Experience and the
Making of Meaning.
Fine Arts Museums of
Foundation for the Hellenic World, http://www.fhw.gr (
Frost, Olivia. “When the Object is Digital: Properties of Digital Surrogate Objects and Implications for Learning.” In Perspectives
on Object-centered Learning in Museums. Edited by Scott. G.
Paris. Erlbaum Press: 2002, 79–94.
Hein, George. “The
Hein, George. Learning in the Museum.
Hirzy,
Ellen. “Mastering Civic Engagement: A Report From the American Association
of Museums.” In Mastering
Civic Engagement: A Challenge to Museums,
Gurian, Elaine
Heumann. “Noodling around with Exhibition Opportunities.”In Exhibiting Cultures, the Poetics and Politics
of Museum Display. Edited by Ivan Karp and Steven D. Lavine.
Livingstone, S. and L. Lievrouw. Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and
Consequences of ICTs.
Lyons,
K. L. and J. K. Papadopoulos. The
Archaeology of Colonialism
Macdonald,
Sharon. “Exhibitions of Power and Powers of Exhibitions: An introduction
to the Politics of Display.” In
The Politics of Display: Museums, Science,
Moving Here, 200 years of Migration to
The
Witcomb, Andrea.
Re-Imagining the Museum: Beyond the Mausoleum.London:
Routledge, 2003.
|
