Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Giménez-Cassina, Eduardo

DSpace Principal
→
Colección de los Centros Asociados
→
Portugal
→
Centro de Estudos Interdisciplinares em Educação e Desenvolvimento da Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologia - CeiED/ULHT - Cosecha
→
Ver ítem

dc.creator	Giménez-Cassina, Eduardo
dc.date	2010-10-25
dc.date.accessioned	2022-03-17T17:46:39Z
dc.date.available	2022-03-17T17:46:39Z
dc.identifier	https://revistas.ulusofona.pt/index.php/cadernosociomuseologia/article/view/1632
dc.identifier.uri	http://biblioteca-repositorio.clacso.edu.ar/handle/CLACSO/48744
dc.description	Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)	pt-PT
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.language	por
dc.publisher	Edições Universitárias Lusófonas	pt-PT
dc.relation	https://revistas.ulusofona.pt/index.php/cadernosociomuseologia/article/view/1632/1298
dc.source	Cadernos de Sociomuseologia; No. 37 (2010): To understand New Museology in the 21st Century	en-US
dc.source	Cadernos de Sociomuseologia; n. 37 (2010): To understand New Museology in the 21st Century	pt-PT
dc.source	1646-3714
dc.source	1646-3706
dc.title	Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional	pt-PT
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion