Key Concepts

of Museology
Key Concepts
of Museology
Edited by Andr Desvalles
and Franois Mairesse
 With the assistance of the Muse Royal de Mariemont
www.musee-mariemont.be

And the assistance of the ICOM International Committee for Museology

Cover photos:

2009 Muse du Louvre / Angle Dequier

National Heritage Board, Singapore
Auckland Museum
Ningbo Museum

Armand Colin, 2010

ISBN: 978-2-200-25398-1
 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
Franois Mairesse, Andr Desvalles, Bernard Deloche, Serge
Chaumier, Martin Schrer, Raymond Montpetit, Yves Bergeron,
Nomie Drouguet, Jean Davallon

With the participation of:

Philippe Dub, Nicole Gesch-Koning, Andr Gob, Bruno Brulon

Soares, Wan Chen Chang, Marilia Xavier Cury, Blondine Desbiolles,
Jan Dolak, Jennifer Harris, Francisca Hernandez Hernandez, Diana
Lima, Pedro Mendes, Lynn Maranda, Monica Risnicoff de Gorgas,
Anita Shah, Graciela Weisinger, Anna Leshchenko, all of whom have
contributed to the ICOFOM Symposium in 2009 on this subject or
have read through this document.

Translated from the French version by Suzanne Nash

5
 FOREWORD

The development of professional standards is one of the core

objectives of ICOM, particularly in the area of advancement, sharing,
and communication of knowledge to the broad-ranging global museum
community, but also to those who develop policies in relation to its
work, to those responsible for managing the legal and social aspects
of its profession, and not least to those to whom it is directed and who
are expected to participate in and benet from it. Launched in 1993,
under the supervision of Andr Desvalles, and with the collaboration
of Franois Mairesse from 2005 onwards, the Dictionary of Museology
is a monumental work resulting from many years of research,
interrogation, analysis, revision and debate by ICOMs International
Committee for Museology (ICOFOM), which is particularly devoted
to the process of developing our comprehension of the practice and
theory of museums and the work that is undertaken within these
institutions daily.
The role, development and management of museums has changed
greatly in the last couple of decades. Museum institutions have become
steadily more visitor-focused and some of the larger museums are
veering more towards a corporate management model in their daily
operations. The museum profession and environment have therefore
inevitably evolved. Countries such as China have seen an unprecedented
increase in their museum presence, but there are equally important
museum developments occurring at the micro level, for example
in Small Island Developing States (SIDS). These exciting changes
7
FOREWORD

lead to increasing discrepancies in museum job specications and

training courses across different cultures. In this context, a reference
tool for museum professionals and students of museology is all-
the-more essential. Where the ICOM/UNESCO publication Running
a Museum: A Practical Handbook provided museum practitioners with
a basic handbook on current museum practice, the Encyclopaedia
Dictionarium should be regarded as a companion piece, providing a
complementary perspective on the theory of museums.
While the challenges of day-to-day work often overwhelm the
ability of the museum eld to stop and think about its fundamental
philosophical bases, there is a growing need for functionaries at all
levels to rise to the challenge of bringing clarity and comprehension
to those who question the relevance of the museum to society and
its citizens. ICOFOMs crucial work as encapsulated in the Encyclo-
paedic Dictionary provides for a cogent, structured deconstruction
and distillation of the core precepts underpinning our work today.
Although the Dictionary presents a predominantly Francophone vision
of museology for reasons of linguistic coherence, the terminologies
synthesised herein are comprehended and/or utilised by museologists
in several different cultures. The publication, while not exhaustive,
synthesises decades of knowledge development in a systematic investi-
gation of both the epistemology and etymology of the museum and
offers an in-depth presentation of the primary concepts in Museology
today, with an elegantly pragmatic view of both the historical
redundancies and current contentions, which invest in the growth and
expansion of the profession. ICOFOM, the Dictionarys editors and its
authors have consistently brought sensibility, perception, rigour and
balance to this task of dening and explaining the institution and
the practice.
As an avant premire of the complete Encyclopaedic Dictionary,
this brochure has been designed to give access to the widest public
possible, in the context both historical and current, for the derivation
and evolution of the various terms that litter the language today. In
the spirit of ICOMs policy of embracing diversity and promoting
greater inclusion, ICOM anticipates that like the ICOM Code of Ethics
8
 FOREWORD

for Museums, its publication will stimulate broad-based debate and

collaboration in its continued updating and revision, rather than being
left on the high shelf. ICOMs 22nd triennial General Conference,
in Shanghai, China is therefore a tting dbut for this invaluable
reference tool in museology. Bringing together museum professionals
of all nationalities is precisely the type of platform that gives birth
to standards and reference tools such as these for current and future
generations.

Alissandra Cummins
President
International Council of Museums (ICOM)

9
 PREFACE

In accordance with the underlying principles of ICOM, the aim

of the International Committee for Museology (ICOFOM) since its
beginnings in 1977 has been to develop museology as a scientic and
academic discipline which will foster the development of museums
and the museum profession through research, study, and dissemi-
nation of the main currents of museological thinking.
To this end a multidisciplinary working group was created to
make a critical analysis of museological terminology, focusing its
thinking on the fundamental concepts of museology. For nearly
twenty years the Thesaurus Working Group compiled remarkable
essays and summaries from its scientic research. Convinced of the
importance of providing the public with a catalogue of terms consti-
tuting fundamental reference material, ICOFOM decided with the
support of the International Council of Museums to introduce this
publication at the ICOM General Conference to be held in Shanghai
in November 2010. The introductory brochure, a summary of each of
the twenty-one essays on a fundamental museological term, will be
presented as a preview of the forthcoming Dictionary of Museology in
which these essays will be published in full, accompanied by a selective
dictionary describing close to 500 words mentioned in them.
I would like to emphasise that this brochure, an introduction to the
far more extensive work, does not pretend to be exhaustive but aims
to permit the reader to differentiate between the concepts that are
11
P R E FA C E
covered by each term, to discover new connotations and their links to
the entire museological eld.
Dr. Vinos Sofka did not work in vain when, in the rst years of
ICOFOM, he strove to turn this international committee into a forum
for reection and debate on museological theory, able to reect on
its own foundations. Thus the committees ongoing intellectual
production, which continues today, has been preserved through
the annual publication of the ICOFOM Study Series (ISS) which has
enriched the body of museological theory for over thirty years. The
international bibliography of all ICOFOM publications is unique and
represents a faithful picture of the evolution of museological thinking
throughout the world.
From reading the articles in this brochure we can understand the
need to reconsider the theoretical fundamentals of museology from
an integrating and pluralistic approach, founded in the conceptual
wealth of each word. The terms presented in this brochure are a
clear example of the work of a group of specialists who have been
able to understand and enhance the fundamental structure of the
language, our intangible heritage par excellence. The conceptual
reach of museological terminology allows us to appreciate the extent
to which theory and practice are inseparably linked. Wishing to go
beyond beaten paths, the authors introduced their own observations
wherever they needed to draw attention to a specic characteristic of
a term. They were not trying to build or rebuild bridges, but rather to
start from an examination of other more precise concepts and search
for new cultural meanings which enrich the theoretical foundations
of a discipline as vast as museology, destined to strengthen the role of
museums and their professionals worldwide.
In my position as Chair of ICOFOM it is a great honour and
pleasure to be present at the launch, through this brochure, of a work
that will soon be a landmark in the vast museological bibliography
produced by the members of ICOFOM from different countries and
disciplines, all united around one common ideal.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all who have
generously contributed their time and talents to bringing these
12
 P R E FA C E

fundamental works to life: our friends and colleagues of whom we are

extremely proud:

to ICOM, our guiding organisation, for having understood, thanks

to the responsiveness of its Director General, Mr. Julien Anfruns,
the importance of a project begun long ago and which can now be
completed thanks to his commitment,
to Andr Desvalles, author of and driving force behind a project
which has gained unexpected and well-deserved importance,
to Franois Mairesse, who began his trajectory within ICOFOM
in his youth, bringing his gifts as a productive writer and resear-
cher, and who, with Andr Desvalles, successfully coordinated the
actions of the Thesaurus Working Group and completed the editing
of this brochure and the Dictionary of Museology.
to all the internationally renowned authors of the different articles,
museological experts in their respective disciplines,
and nally to our three translators, whose work has also been scien-
tic in the translation of specialised terms from French when their
equivalent is not always obvious, either in English or in Spanish
or in Chinese.

To all those who have contributed, each in their own way, to

fullling a dream that has become a reality, I would like to express my
most sincere gratitude.

Nelly Decarolis
Chair
ICOFOM

13
 INTRODUCTION

What is a museum? How do we dene a collection? What is an

institution? What does the term heritage encompass? Museum
professionals have inevitably developed answers to questions such as
these, which are fundamental to their work, compiled according to
their knowledge and experience. Do we need to reconsider these? We
believe so. Museum work shifts back and forth between practice and
theory, with theory regularly being sacriced to the thousand and one
daily tasks. The fact remains, however, that thought is a stimulating
exercise which is also fundamental for personal development and for
the development of the museum world.
The purpose of ICOM, on an international level, and of national
and regional museum associations more locally, is to develop standards
and improve the quality of the thinking that guides the museum world
and the services that it provides to society, through meetings between
professionals. More than thirty international committees work on this
collective think tank, each in its specic sector, producing remarkable
publications. But how can this wealth of thought on conservation, new
technologies, education, historical houses, management, professions,
and more, all t together? More generally, how is what one might call
the museum eld organised? These are the questions addressed by the
ICOM International Committee for Museology (ICOFOM) since its
foundation in 1977, in particular through its publications (ICOFOM
Study Series) which set out to inventory and synthesise the diversity of
opinions in museology. This is the context in which the plan to make
15
INTRODUCTION

a compendium of basic concepts in museology, coordinated by Andr

Desvalles, was launched in 1992 by Martin R. Schrer, Chairman of
ICOFOM. He was joined eight years later by Norma Rusconi (who
sadly passed away in 2007), and by Franois Mairesse. Over the years
a consensus emerged that we should try to present, in some twenty
terms, a panorama of the varied landscape that the museum eld
has to offer. This work has gathered momentum over the past few
years. Several preliminary versions of the articles were published (in
ICOFOM Study Series and in the review Publics & muses, which later
became Culture & muses). We propose here a summary of each of
these terms, presenting different aspects of each concept in condensed
form. These are addressed and further developed in the articles
of about ten to thirty pages each, along with a dictionary of about
400 terms, which will appear in the Dictionary of Museology now being
prepared for publication.
The project to compile the Dictionary is based on an international
vision of the museum, fuelled by many exchanges within ICOFOM.
The authors come from French-speaking countries, for reasons of
linguistic coherence: Belgium, Canada, France, Switzerland. They
are Yves Bergeron, Serge Chaumier, Jean Davallon, Bernard Deloche,
Andr Desvalles, Nomie Drouguet, Franois Mairesse, Raymond
Montpetit and Martin R. Schrer. A rst version of this work was
presented and discussed at length at the 32nd symposium of ICOFOM
in Lige and Mariemont (Belgium) in 2009.
Two points are worthy of brief discussion at this point: the
composition of the editorial committee and the choice of the twenty-
one terms.

The French -speaking museal world

in the ICOM dialogue
Why did we choose a committee with almost exclusively French
speakers? Many reasons explain this choice, most but not all of
them practical ones. We know that the idea of an international and
perfectly harmonious collective work is a utopian vision, when not
16
 INTRODUCTION

everyone shares a common language (scientic or not). The interna-

tional committees of ICOM are well aware of this situation, which, to
avoid the risk of a Babel, leads them to favour one language English
todays lingua franca. Naturally, the choice of the smallest common
denominator works to the benet of those who master the language,
often to the detriment of many others less familiar with the tongue
of Shakespeare, who are forced to present their thoughts only in a
caricatured version. Using one of the three ICOM languages (English,
French and Spanish) was unavoidable, but which one? The nationality
of the rst contributors, under the direction of Andr Desvalles
(who had worked for many years with Georges Henri Rivire, the rst
Director of ICOM and the founder of French museology) quickly led
to the selection of French, but there were other arguments in its favour.
Most of the contributors can read if not all three, then at least two of
the ICOM languages, even though their command may be far from
perfect. We are familiar with the wealth of Anglo-American contri-
butions in the museum eld, but we must point out that most of these
authors with some notable exceptions, such as the emblematic gures
of Patrick Boylan and Peter Davis, read neither French nor Spanish. The
choice of French in connection, we hope, with a fairly good knowledge
of foreign literature, allowed us to embrace, if not all contributions
in the museum eld then at least some of its aspects, which are not
generally explored but which are very important for ICOM. We are,
however, aware of the limits of our research and hope that this work
will inspire other teams to present, in their own language (German or
Italian, for example), a different approach to the museum eld.
On the other hand, the choice of a language has consequences
for the structuring of thought as illustrated by a comparison of the
denition of the museum by ICOM in 1974 and in 2007, the rst being
originally drafted in French, the second in English. We are aware
that this volume would not have been the same in Spanish, English or
German, both on the level of its structure and in its choice of terms,
but there would also have been a certain theoretical bias! It is not
surprising that most practical guides about museums are written
in English (such as the excellent manual edited by Patrick Boylan
17
INTRODUCTION

Running a Museum: A Practical Handbook1), while they are much rarer

in France or in the old eastern European countries, which favour essay
writing and developing thought and theory.
It would nevertheless be too caricatural to divide museum
literature into a practical component, strictly Anglo-American, and a
theoretical component, closer to the Latin way of thinking: the number
of theoretical essays written by Anglo-Saxon thinkers in museum
literature completely contradicts this picture. The fact remains that
a number of differences exist, and differences are always enriching to
learn and to appreciate. We have tried to take this into consideration.
Finally it is important to pay tribute, through the choice of the
French language, to the fundamental theoretical work continued for
many years by the rst two directors of ICOM, Georges Henri Rivire
and Hugues de Varine, without whom a large part of the museum
work in continental Europe and in the Americas and Africa could not
be understood. A fundamental reection on the museum world cannot
overlook its history, just as it must keep in mind that its origins were
anchored in the Enlightenment and that its transformation (that is its
institutionalisation) occurred at the time of the French Revolution, but
also that the theoretical foundations were laid on the other side of the
Berlin wall during the 1960s when the world was still divided into two
antagonistic blocs. Although the geopolitical order was completely
overturned nearly a quarter of a century ago, it is important that
the museum sector should not forget its own history this would be
absurd for an instrument that passes culture on to the public and to
future generations! However, there is still a risk of a very short memory
which retains from museum history only how to run such institutions
and how to attract visitors

A constantly evolving structure

Right from the start it was not the authors aim to write a denitive
treatise about the museum world, an ideal theoretical system cut off

1. BOYLAN P. (coord.), Running a Museum: A Practical Handbook, Paris, ICOM/Unesco, 2004.

http//:unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001410/141067e.pdf (accessed: June 2010).

18
 INTRODUCTION

from reality. The relatively modest formula of a list of twenty-one

terms was chosen to try to mark out a continuum of thought on the
museum eld with only so many waymarks. The reader will not be
surprised to nd here a number of familiar terms in common use,
such as museum, collection, heritage, public, but we hope he will
discover some meanings and aspects of these which are less familiar.
He may be surprised not to nd certain other terms, such as conser-
vation, which is examined under preservation. We have not, however,
taken up all the developments that have been made by the members
of the International Committee for Conservation (ICOM-CC), whose
work extends far beyond our pretensions in this eld. Other more
theoretical terms may seem somewhat exotic to museum practitioners
at rst sight: museal, musealisation, museology, etc. Our aim was to
present the broadest view possible of what can be observed in the
museum world, including some common and some more unusual
practices likely to have a considerable impact on the future of museums
in the long term, for example the concept of virtual museums and
cyber museums.
Let us rst set out the limits of this work: we are proposing a
theoretical and critical reection on museum work in its broad sense,
which goes beyond traditional museums. We can of course begin with
museum and try to dene it. In the ICOM denition of museum, it is an
institution at the service of society and its development. What do these
two fundamental terms mean? But above all and museum denitions
do not immediately answer this question why do museums exist? We
know that the museum world is linked to the concept of heritage, but it
is far larger than this. How can we suggest this wider context? By the
concept of museal (or the museal eld), which is the theoretical eld
dealing with these issues, in the same way that politics are the eld of
political reection, etc. The critical and theoretical examination of the
museal eld is museology, whereas the practical aspect is museography.
For each one of these terms there are often not one but several
denitions which have altered over time. The different interpretations
of each of these terms are examined here.
19
INTRODUCTION

The museum world has evolved a great deal over the years, both
in terms of its functions and through its materiality and the main
elements upon which its work is built. In practical terms, museums
work with objects which form their collections. The human element
is obviously fundamental to understanding the way museums work,
as much for the staff working within the museum the professionals,
and their relation to ethics as for the public for whom the museum
is intended. What are the functions of museums? They carry out
an activity that can be described as a process of musealisation and
visualisation. More generally, we speak of museal functions, which
have been described in different ways over time. We have based our
research on one of the best known models, crafted at the end of the
1980s by the Reinwardt Academie in Amsterdam, which recognises
three functions: preservation (which includes the acquisition, conser-
vation and management of collections), research and communication.
Communication itself includes education and exhibition, undoubtedly
the two most visible functions of museums. In this regard it seemed to
us that the educational function had grown sufciently over the past
few decades for the term mediation to be added to it. One of the major
differences that struck us between earlier museum work and today is
the growth in the importance attached to notions of management, so
we thought that because of its specicities, it should be treated as a
museum function. The same is probably true for museum architecture,
which has also grown in importance to the point where it sometimes
upsets the balance between other museum functions.
How does one dene a museum? By a conceptual approach
(museum, heritage, institution, society, ethics, museal), by theoretical
and practical considerations (museology, museography), by its functions
(object, collection, musealisation), through its players (professionals,
public), or by the activities which ensue from it (preservation, research,
communication, education, exhibition, mediation, management,
architecture)? There are many possible points of view which have to
be compared to better understand the museum phenomenon, which is
rapidly developing, the recent evolutions of which cannot leave anyone
indifferent.
20
 INTRODUCTION

In the early 1980s the museum world experienced a wave of

unprecedented changes: having long been considered elitist and
unobtrusive, museums were now, as it were, coming out, aunting a
taste for spectacular architecture, mounting large exhibitions that were
showy and hugely popular and intending to become part of a certain
style of consumerism. The popularity of museums has not failed since,
and they have doubled in number in the space of little more than a
generation, while astonishing new building projects spring up from
Shanghai to Abu Dhabi, at the dawn of the new geopolitical changes
promised in the future. One generation later the museum eld is
still changing. Even if homo touristicus seems to have replaced the
visitor as the main target of museum marketing, we can still wonder
about their prospects and ask: is there still a future for museums as
we know them? Is the civilisation of material goods crystallised by
museums undergoing radical change? We cannot claim to answer
such questions here, but we hope that those who are interested in the
future of museums in general or, more practically, in the future of their
own institution, will nd in these few pages some elements which may
enrich their thoughts.

Franois Mairesse and Andr Desvalles

21
 A
ARCHITECTURE
n.Equivalent in French: architecture; Spa-
nish: arquitectura; German: Architektur; Ita-
lian: architettura; Portuguese: arquitectura
(Brazil: arquitetura).
(Museum) architecture is dened as
the art of designing and installing
or building a space that will be used
to house specic museum functions,
more particularly the functions of
exhibition and display, preventive
and remedial active conservation,
study, management, and receiving
visitors.
Since the invention of the modern
museum, from the end of the 18th cen-
tury and the beginning of the 19th,
while old heritage buildings were
also being reconverted for museum
use, a specic architecture evolved
that was linked to the requirements of
preserving, researching and commu-
nicating collections through perma-
nent or temporary exhibitions. This
architecture is evident in the earliest
museum buildings as much as in the
most contemporary ones. The archi-
tectural vocabulary has itself inuen-
ced the development of the idea of the
museum. Thus the form of the temple
with a cupola and columned portico
became established along with the
gallery, conceived as one of the main
models for ne arts museums, and
by extension gave rise to the names
gallery, galerie, galleria, and Galerie
in France, Italy and Germany and in
Anglo-American countries.
Although the form of museum
buildings was often focused on safe-
guarding collections, it evolved as
new functions in museum work were
developed. So it was that after see-
king solutions for better lighting of
the exhibits (Soufot, Brbion, 1778;
J.-B. Le Brun, 1787), for distributing
the collections better throughout the
museum building (Mechel, 1778-
1784), and for structuring the exhi-
bition space better (Leo von Klenze,
1816-1830), at the beginning of the
20th century museum people realised
that the permanent exhibitions must
be reduced. To this end they created
storage areas, either by sacricing
exhibition rooms or by creating space
in the basement, or by building new
structures. In addition, every effort
was made to make the setting for
the exhibits as neutral as possible
even if this meant sacricing all or
part of the existing historical dcor.
The invention of electricity greatly
facilitated these improvements and
allowed the lighting systems to be
completely revised.
23
 New functions that emerged in
the second half of the 20th century
led to major architectural changes:
the increase in the number of tem-
porary exhibitions led to a different
distribution of collections between
the permanent exhibition and sto-
rage spaces; the development of visi-
tor facilities, educational workshops
and rest areas, in particular the crea-
tion of large multi-purpose spaces;
the development of bookshops, res-
taurants and shops for selling items
relating to the exhibitions. But at the
same time, the decentralisation by
regrouping and by subcontracting
some museum operations required
the building or installation of specia-
lised autonomous buildings: rstly,
restoration workshops and laborato-
ries which could specialise while ser-
ving several museums, then storage
areas located away from the exhibi-
tion spaces.
The architect is the person who
designs and draws the plans for
the building and who directs its
construction. More broadly spea-
king, the person who designs the
envelope around the collections,
the staff and the public. Seen from
this perspective, architecture affects
all the elements connected with the
space and light within the museum,
aspects which might seem to be of
secondary importance but which
prove to be determining factors for
the meaning of the display (arrange-
ment in chronological order, visibility
from all angles, neutral background,
etc.). Museum buildings are thus
24
designed and built according to an
architectural programme drawn up
by the scientic and administrative
heads of the establishment. Howe-
ver, the decisions about denition of
the programme and the limits of the
architects intervention are not always
distributed in this way. Architecture,
as art or the method for building and
installing a museum, can be seen as
a complete oeuvre, one that integra-
tes the entire museum mechanism.
This approach, sometimes advocated
by architects, can only be envisaged
when the architectural programme
encompasses all the museographical
issues, which is often far from being
the case.
It can happen that the program-
mes given to the architects include
the interior design, allowing the
latter if no distinction is made
between the areas for general use
and those for museographical use
to give free rein to their creati-
vity, sometimes to the detriment of
the museum. Some architects have
specialised in staging exhibitions
and have become stage designers or
exhibition designers. Those who can
call themselves museographers, or
specialists in museum practice are
rare, unless their practices include
this specic type of competence.
The present difculties of museum
architecture lie in the conict which
logically exists between, on the one
hand, the ambitions of the architect
(who will nd himself in the spotli-
ght due to the international visibility
of this type of building today), and on
the other hand, the people connected
with the preservation and displaying
of the collections; nally, the comfort
of the different visitors must be taken
into account. This issue has already
been highlighted by the architect
Auguste Perret: For a ship to oat,
should it not be designed quite diffe-
rently from a locomotive? The speci-
city of the museum building falls to
the architect, who will be inspired by
its function to create the organism.
(Perret, 1931). A look at present day
architectural creations shows that,
even if most architects take the requi-
rements of the museum programme
into consideration, many continue to
favour the beautiful object over the
excellent tool.
Z DERIVATIVES: ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMME.
) CORRELATED: DCOR, EXHIBITION DESIGN,
INTERIOR DESIGNER, LIGHTING, MUSEOGRAPHIC
PROGRAMME, MUSEOGRAPHY.
25
 C
COLLECTION
n. Equivalent in French: collection; Spanish:
coleccin; German: Sammlung, Kollektion; Ita-
lian: collezione, raccolta; Portuguese: coleco
(Brazil: coleo).
Generally speaking, a collection
may be dened as a set of material
or intangible objects (works, arte-
facts, mentefacts, specimens, archive
documents, testimonies etc.) which
an individual or an establishment
has assembled, classied, selected,
and preserved in a safe setting and
usually displays to a smaller or larger
audience, according to whether the
collection is public or private.
To constitute a real collection,
these sets of objects must form a
(relatively) coherent and meaningful
whole. It is important to distinguish
between a collection and a fonds, an
archival term referring to a collec-
tion from a single source, which dif-
fers from a museum collection by its
organic nature, and indicates archival
documents of all kinds which have
been automatically gathered, crea-
ted and/or accumulated and used by
a physical person or a family in its
activities or its functions. (Bureau
of Canadian Archivists, 1992). In
the case of a fonds, unlike a museum
collection, there is no selection and
26
rarely any intention to build a cohe-
rent whole.
Whether material or intangi-
ble, a collection is at the heart of
the museums activities. Museums
have a duty to acquire, preserve
and promote their collections as a
contribution to the safeguarding of
the natural, cultural and scientic
heritage (ICOM Code of Ethics,
2006, article 2). Without saying as
much explicitly, ICOMs denition
of a museum remains essentially tied
to this principle, conrming Louis
Raus long-standing opinion: We
understand that museums are made
for collections and that they must be
built as it were from inside to out-
side, shaping the container according
to the content (Rau, 1908). This
concept no longer corresponds to
some models of museums which do
not own collections, or which have
collections that are not at the heart
of their scientic work. The concept
of collection is also one of those most
widely used in the museum world,
even if we have favoured the notion
of museum object, as will be seen
below. However, one can enumerate
three possible connotations of this
concept, which varies according to
two factors: on the one hand, the
institutional nature of the collection,
and on the other hand, the material
or intangible nature of the collection
media.
1. Frequent attempts have been
made to differentiate between a
museum collection and other types of
collection because the term collection
is so commonly used. Generally
speaking (since this is not the case
for every museum) the museum
collection or the museum col-
lections are both the source and
the purpose of the activities of the
museum perceived as an institution.
Collections can thus be dened as
the collected objects of a museum,
acquired and preserved because of
their potential value as examples, as
reference material, or as objects of
aesthetic or educational importance
(Burcaw, 1997). We can thus refer
to the museum phenomenon as the
institutionalisation of a private col-
lection. We must note, however, that
if the curator or the museum staff
are not collectors, collectors have
always had close ties with curators.
Museums should have an acquisition
policy as emphasised by ICOM,
which also mentions a collection
policy museums select, purchase,
assemble, receive. The French verb
collectionner is rarely used because it
is too closely linked to the actions of
the private collector and to its deri-
vatives (Baudrillard, 1968), that is to
say collectionism and accumulation,
known pejoratively as collectionitis.
From this perspective the collection
is seen as both the result and the
source of a scientic programme,
the purpose of which is acquisition
and research, beginning with the
material and the intangible evidence
of man and his environment. This
criterion, however, does not diffe-
rentiate between the museum and
the private collection, in so far as
the latter can be assembled with a
scientic objective, even though the
museum may acquire a private col-
lection which has been built with
very little intention to serve science.
This is when the institutional nature
of the museum dominates when
dening the term. According to Jean
Davallon, in a museum the objects
are always parts of systems and cate-
gories (Davallon, 1992). Among
the systems relating to a collection,
besides the written inventory which
is a basic requirement of a museum
collection, it is just as essential to
adopt a classication system which
describes and can also rapidly nd
any item among the thousands or
millions of objects (taxonomy, for
example, is the science of classifying
living organisms). Modern classi-
cation systems have been greatly
inuenced by information techno-
logy, but documenting collections
remains an activity requiring speci-
c and rigorous knowledge, based
on building up a thesaurus of terms
describing the relations between the
different categories of objects.
2. The denition of collection can
also be viewed from a more general
perspective to include private col-
lectors and museums, but taking
27
 its assumed materiality as a starting
point. Since this collection is made
of material objects as was the case
very recently for the ICOM deni-
tion of museums the collection is
identied by the place where is loca-
ted. Krysztof Pomian denes the
collection as any group of natural
or articial objects that are held tem-
porarily or permanently outside the
circuit of economic activity, subject
to special protection in an enclosed
place designed for this purpose, and
displayed on view (Pomian, 1987).
Pomian thus denes the collection
by its essentially symbolic value, in
so far as the object has lost its use-
fulness or its value as an item for
exchange and has become a carrier
of meaning (semiophore or carrier
of signicance). (see Object).
3. The recent development of
museums in particular the reco-
gnition of intangible heritage has
emphasised the more general nature
of collections while also raising new
challenges. Intangible collections (tra-
ditional knowledge, rituals and myths
in ethnology, ephemeral gestures and
performances in contemporary art)
have led to the development of new
systems for acquisition. The material
composition of objects alone some-
times becomes secondary, and the
documentation of the collecting pro-
cess which has always been impor-
tant in archaeology and ethnology
now becomes the most important
information. This information is not
only part of research, but also part
of communicating to the public.
28
Museum collections have always
appeared relevant provided that they
are dened in relation to the accom-
panying documentation, and also
by the work that results from them.
This evolution has led to a much
wider meaning of the collection as
a gathering of objects, each preser-
ving its individuality, and assembled
intentionally according to a specic
logic. This latter meaning, the most
open, includes toothpick collections
accumulated as well as traditional
museum collections, but also col-
lections of oral history, memories or
scientic experiments.
Z DERIVATIVES: COLLECT, COLLECTION, COLLECTOR,
COLLECTION MANAGEMENT.
) CORRELATED: ACQUISITION, CATALOGUE,
CATALOGUING, CONSERVATION, DEACCESSION,
DOCUMENTATION, EXHIBIT, EXHIBITION, PRESERVATION,
RESEARCH, RESTORATION, RETURN, RESTITUTION, STUDY.
COMMUNIC ATION
n. Equivalent in French: communication;
Spanish: comunicacin; German: Kommuni-
kation; Italian: communicazione, Portuguese:
communicao.
Communication (C) is the action
of conveying information between
one or several emitters (E) and one
or several receivers (R) through a
channel (the ECR model, Lasswell
1948). The concept is so general that
it is not limited to human processes
of bearing information of a semantic
nature, but is also encountered in
relation to machines and to animals
or social life (Wiener 1949). The
term has two usual connotations
which can be found to different
degrees in museums, according to
whether the phenomenon is recipro-
cal (E C R) or not (E C R).
In the rst case the communication
is called interactive, while in the
second it is unilateral and spread
out in time. When communication is
unilateral and operates in time, and
not just in space, it is called transmis-
sion (Debray, 2000).
In the museum context commu-
nication emerges both as the pre-
sentation of the results of research
undertaken into the collections
(catalogues, articles, conferences,
exhibitions) and as the provision of
information about the objects in the
collections (the permanent exhibi-
tion and the information connected
with it). This interpretation sees the
exhibition both as an integral part
of the research process and as an
element in a more general commu-
nication system including for exam-
ple, scientic publications. This is
the rationale which prevailed in the
PRC (PreservationResearchCom-
munication) system proposed by the
Reinwardt Academie in Amsterdam,
which includes under communi-
cation the functions of exhibition,
publication, and education fullled
by the museum.
1. Application of the term com-
munication to museums is not
obvious, in spite of the use made of
it by ICOM in its denition of the
museum until 2007. This denition
states that a museum acquires,
conserves, researches, communicates
and exhibits the tangible and intan-
gible heritage of humanity and its
environment for the purposes of edu-
cation, study and enjoyment. Until
the second half of the 20th century
the principle function of a museum
was to preserve amassed cultural
or natural treasures, and possibly
to display these, without explicitly
expressing any intention to commu-
nicate, that is to convey a message
or information to a receiving public.
If in the 1990s, people were asking
themselves whether the museum
was really a medium (Davallon,
1992; Rasse, 1999) this was because
the museums communication func-
tion did not appear obvious to eve-
ryone. On the one hand, the idea of a
museum message appeared only rela-
tively late, with thematic exhibitions
that were principally aimed at educa-
tion; on the other hand, the receiving
public remained a great unknown
for a long time, and it is only quite
recently that museum visitor studies
and visitor surveys have developed.
Seen from the perspective favoured
in the ICOM denition of museums,
museum communication would
appear to be the sharing, with diffe-
rent publics, of the objects in the col-
lection and the information resulting
from research into them.
2. We can dene the specicity
of communication as practised by
museums in two points: (1) it is most
often unilateral, that is, without the
possibility of reply from the recei-
ving public, whose extreme passivity
was rightly emphasised by McLuhan
and Parker (1969, 2008). This does
29
 not mean that the visitor is not perso-
nally involved (whether interactively
or not) in this type of communication
(Hooper-Greenhill, 1991); (2) it is not
essentially verbal, nor can it really be
compared with reading a text (Daval-
lon, 1992), but it works through the
sensory presentation of the objects
exhibited: The museum as a com-
munication system, then, depends
on the non-verbal language of the
objects and observable phenomena.
It is primarily a visual language, and
at times an aural or tactile language.
So intense is its communicative power
that ethical responsibility in its use
must be a primary concern of the
museum worker (Cameron, 1968).
3. More generally speaking, com-
munication gradually became the
driving force of museum operations
towards the end of the 20th century.
This means that museums communi-
cate in a specic way (using their own
methods), but also by using all other
communication techniques, possibly
at the risk of investing less in what
is most central to their work. Many
museums the largest ones have
a public relations department, or a
public programmes department,
which develops activities aimed at
communicating to and reaching
various sectors of the public that are
more or less targeted, and involving
them through traditional or inno-
vative activities (events, gatherings,
publications, extramural activities,
etc.), In this context the very large
sums invested by museums in their
internet sites are a signicant part of
the museums communication logic.
30
Consequences include the many digi-
tal exhibitions or cyber-exhibitions
(a eld in which a museum may have
genuine expertise), on-line cata-
logues, more or less sophisticated
discussion forums, and forays into
social networks (YouTube, Twitter,
Facebook, etc.).
4. The discussion regarding the
communication methods used by the
museum raises the question of trans-
mission. The chronic lack of interac-
tivity in museum communication has
led us to ask ourselves how we can
make the visitor more active, while
seeking his participation (McLuhan
and Parker 1969, 2008). We could,
of course, remove the labels or even
the story line so that the public could
build their own rationale as they
move through the exhibition, but
this would not make the communi-
cation interactive. The only places
where a degree of interactivity has
been developed (such as the Palais de
la Dcouverte, the Cit des sciences et
de lindustrie in Paris, or the Explo-
ratorium in San Francisco) seem clo-
ser to amusement parks that develop
fun attractions. It appears neverthe-
less that the real task of the museum
is closer to transmission, understood
as unilateral communication over
time so that each person can assimi-
late the cultural knowledge which
conrms his humanity and places
him in society.
) CORRELATED: CULTURAL ACTION, EXHIBITION,
EDUCATION, DISSEMINATION, INTERPRETATION, MEDIA,
MEDIATION, TRANSMISSION, PUBLIC AWARENESS, PUBLIC
RELATIONS.
 E
EDUC ATION
n. (Latin: educatio, educere, to guide, to lead
out of) Equivalent in French: ducation; Spa-
nish: educacin; German: Erziehung, Museums-
pdagogik; Italian: istruzione; Portuguese:
educao.
Generally speaking, education means
the training and development of
human beings and their capacities by
implementing the appropriate means
to do so. Museum education can be
dened as a set of values, concepts,
knowledge and practices aimed at
ensuring the visitors development;
it is a process of acculturation which
relies on pedagogical methods, deve-
lopment, fullment, and the acquisi-
tion of new knowledge.
1. The concept education should be
dened in relation to other terms, the
rst of these being instruction, which
concerns the mind and is unders-
tood as knowledge acquired by which
one becomes skilful and learned
(Toraille, 1985). Education relates
to both the heart and the mind, and
is understood as knowledge which
one aims to update in a relationship
which sets knowledge in motion to
develop understanding and indivi-
dual reinvestment. Education is the
action of developing moral, physical,
intellectual and scientic values, and
knowledge. Knowledge, know-how,
being and knowing how to be are four
major components in the educatio-
nal eld. The term education comes
from the Latin educere, to lead out
of (i.e. out of childhood) which assu-
mes a dimension of active accompa-
niment in the transmission process.
It is connected with the notion of
awakening, which aims to arouse
curiosity, to lead to questioning and
develop the capacity to think. The
purpose of informal education is thus
to develop the senses and awareness;
it is a development process which pre-
supposes change and transformation
rather than conditioning and incul-
cation, notions it tends to oppose.
The shaping of it therefore happens
via instruction which conveys use-
ful knowledge, and education which
makes this knowledge transformable
and able to be reinvested by the indi-
vidual to further the process of his
becoming a human being.
2. In a more specically museum
context, education is the mobilisa-
tion of knowledge stemming from
the museum and aimed at the deve-
lopment and the fullment of indi-
viduals, through the assimilation of
this knowledge, the development of
new sensitivities and the realisation of
new experiences. Museum pedagogy
31
 is a theoretical and methodological
framework at the service of educatio-
nal activities in a museum environ-
ment, activities the main purpose of
which is to impart knowledge (infor-
mation, skills and attitudes) to the
visitor (Allard and Boucher, 1998).
Learning is dened as an act of per-
ception, interaction and assimilation
of an object by an individual, which
leads to an acquisition of knowledge
or the development of skills or atti-
tudes (Allard and Boucher, 1998).
Learning relates to the individual
way in which a visitor assimilates the
subject. With regard to the science of
education or intellectual training, if
pedagogy refers more to childhood
and is part of upbringing, the notion
of didactic is considered as the theory
of dissemination of knowledge, the
way to present knowledge to an
individual whatever his or her age.
Education is wider, and aims at the
autonomy of the individual.
We can mention other related
concepts which shade and enrich
these different approaches. The
concepts of museum activities or
cultural action, like that of interpreta-
tion or mediation, are often invoked
to describe the work carried out with
the public in the museums efforts
at transmission. I am teaching you
says a teacher, I am allowing you to
know says a mediator (Caillet and
Lehalle, 1995) (see Mediation). This
distinction aims to reect the diffe-
rence between the act of training,
and a process of awareness appea-
ling to an individual who will nish
32
the work according to the extent
to which he assimilates the content
before him. Training assumes
constraint and obligation, whereas
the museum context supposes free-
dom (Schouten, 1987). In Germany
the term pedagogy, or Pdagogik is
used more frequently, and of the
word used to describe education
within museums is Museumspdago-
gik. This refers to all the activities
that a museum may offer, regardless
of the age, education or social bac-
kground of the public concerned.
Z DERIVATIVES: ADULT EDUCATION, EDUCATIONAL
SCIENCES, EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, LIFE-LONG
EDUCATION, INFORMAL OR NON-FORMAL EDUCATION,
MID-CAREER EDUCATION, MUSEUM EDUCATION, POPULAR
EDUCATION.
) CORRELATED: AWAKENING, CULTURAL ACTION,
CULTURAL ACTIVITIES, DEVELOPMENT, DIDACTIC,
INTERNSHIP, INSTRUCTION, MEDIATION, PEDAGOGY,
TEACHING, TRAINING, TRANSMISSION, UPBRINGING.
ETHICS
n. (From the Greek ethos: customs, charac-
ter) Equivalent French: thique; Spanish:
etica; German: Ethik; Italian: ethica; Portu-
guese: tica.
Generally speaking, ethics are a phi-
losophical discipline in philosophy
that deals with identifying values
which will guide both private and
public human conduct. Far from
being a simple synonym of morality,
as is currently believed, ethics is the
opposite in so far as the choice of
values is not imposed by a specic
set of rules, but rather freely chosen
by the individual taking action. This
distinction is essential because of its
consequences for museums, since
the museum is an institution, that is
to say a phenomenon which exists by
common agreement and which can
be altered.
Within the museum, ethics can
be dened as the discussion process
aimed at identifying the basic values
and principles on which the work of
the museum relies. Ethics lead to the
drawing up of principles set out in
museums codes of ethics, of which
the ICOM code is one example.
1. Ethics are aimed at guiding a
museums conduct. In a moral vision
of the world, reality is subject to a
moral order which determines the
place occupied by each person. This
order constitutes a perfection towards
which each being must strive by ful-
lling his function perfectly, and this
is known as virtue (Plato, Cicero,
etc.). By contrast, the ethical vision of
the world is based on a chaotic and
disorganised world, left to chance
and without any xed bearings.
Faced with this universal disorder,
individuals are the only judge of what
is best for them (Nietzsche, Deleuze);
they alone must decide for themsel-
ves what is good or bad. Between
these two radical positions that are
moral order and ethical disorder, a
middle road is conceivable in so far
as it is possible for people to agree
freely among themselves to recognise
common values (such as the principle
of respect for human beings). Again
this is an ethical point of view which
on the whole governs the way modern
democracies determine values. This
fundamental distinction still inuen-
ces the division between two types
of museums or two ways of operating
even today. Some very traditional
museums such as ne arts museums
seem to follow a pre-established
order: their collections appear to
be sacred and dene a model of
conduct by different actors (curators
and visitors), and a crusading spirit
in the way they carry out their tasks.
On the other hand, some museums,
perhaps more attentive to the prac-
tical reality of peoples lives, do not
consider themselves subject to abso-
lute values and continuously reas-
sess them. These may be museums
more in touch with real life, such
as anthropology museums, striving
to grasp an ethnic reality which is
often uctuating, or so-called social
museums for which questions and
practical choices (political or social)
are more important than the religion
of collections.
2. While the distinction between
ethical and moral is quite clear in
French and Spanish, the term in
English is more open to confusion
(thique in French can be trans-
lated as ethic or also as moral in
English). Thus the English version
of the ICOM Code of Ethics (2006)
in appears in French as Code de
dontologie (Cdigo de deontologa
in Spanish). The vision expressed in
the code is, however clearly prescrip-
tive and normative (and very similar
to that expressed in the codes of the
UK Museums Association and the
33
 American Association of Museums).
It is laid out in eight chapters which
identify basic measures to allow the
(supposedly) harmonious develo-
pment of the museum institution
within society: (1) Museums take
care of the protection, documenta-
tion and promotion of the natural
and cultural heritage of humanity
(institutional, physical and nancial
resources needed to open a museum).
(2) Museums which maintain collec-
tions hold them in trust for the bene-
t of society and its development
(issues of acquisition and deaccession
of collections). (3) Museums hold pri-
mary evidence for building up and
furthering knowledge (deontology of
research or of collecting evidence).
(4) Museums provide opportunities
for the appreciation, understanding
and management of the natural and
cultural heritage (deontology of exhi-
biting). (5) Museums hold resources
that provide opportunities for other
services and benets to the public
(issues of expertise). (6) Museums
work in close collaboration with
the communities from which their
collections originate as well as with
those that they serve (issues of cultu-
ral property). (7) Museums operate
in a legal manner (respect for the
rule of law). (8) Museums operate in
a professional manner (professional
conduct and conicts of interest).
3. The third impact on museums
of the concept of ethics is its contri-
bution to the denition of museology
as museal ethics. From this pers-
pective, museology is not a science
34
in development (as proposed by
Strnsk), because the study of the
birth and the evolution of museums
does not follow the methods of both
human and natural sciences in so far
as it is an institution that is mallea-
ble and can be reshaped. However,
as a tool of social life, museums
demand that endless choices are
made to determine the use to which
they will be put. And precisely here,
the choice of the ends to which this
body of methods may be subjected
is none other than a choice of ethics.
In this sense museology can be de-
ned as museal ethics, because it is
ethics which decide what a museum
should be and the ends to which it
should be used. This is the ethical
context in which it was possible for
ICOM to build a deontological code
for the management of museums,
a deontology which constitutes a
code of ethics common to a socio-
professional category and serving it
as a paralegal framework.
) CORRELATED: MORAL, VALUES, DEONTOLOGY.
EXHIBITION
n. (early 15c., from O.Fr. exhibicion, from
Latin exhibitionem, nom. exhibitio, from exhi-
bere to show, display, lit. to hold out, from
ex- out and habere to hold) Equivalent
French: (from the Latin expositio, gen. espoi-
tionis: expos, explication) exposition; Spa-
nish: exposicin; German: Austellung; Italian:
esposizione, mostra; Portuguese: exposio,
exhibio.
The term exhibition refers to
the result of the action of displaying
something, as well as the whole of
that which is displayed, and the place
where it is displayed. Let us consi-
der a denition of the exhibition
borrowed from outside and not draf-
ted by ourselves. This term along
with its abbreviated term exhibit
means the act of displaying things to
the public, the objects displayed (the
exhibits), and the area where this dis-
play takes place (Davallon, 1986).
Borrowed from the Latin expositio,
the French term exposition (in old
French exposicun, at the beginning
of the 12th century) rst had at the
same time the gurative meaning of
an explanation, an expos, the lite-
ral meaning of an exposition (of an
abandoned child, still used in Spa-
nish in the term expsito), and the
general meaning of display. From
there (in the 16th century) the French
word exposition had the meaning
of presenting (merchandise), then
(in the 17th century) it could mean
abandonment, initial presentation
(to explain a work) or situation (of
a building). In 18th century France
the word exhibition, as a display of
art works, had the same meaning in
French as in English, but the French
use of the word exhibition to refer to
the presentation of art later gave way
to exposition. On the other hand, the
word exposition in English means
(1) the setting forth of a meaning or
intent, or (2) a trade show, thus pre-
serving the earlier meanings of the
French. Today both the French expo-
sition and the English exhibition have
the same meaning, which applies to
the setting out of exhibits of all kinds
in a space for public viewing; also the
exhibits themselves, and the space in
which the show takes place. From
this viewpoint, each of these mea-
nings denes somewhat different
elements.
1. The exhibition, understood as
the container or the place where the
contents are on display (just as the
museum appears both as a function
and as a building) is characterised
not by the architecture of this space
but by the place itself. Even though
the exhibition appears to be one of
the characteristics of museums, exhi-
bition thus has a far broader reach
because it can also be set up by a
prot-making organisation (market,
store, art gallery). It can be organised
in an enclosed space, but also in the
open air (in a park or a street) or in
situ, that is to say without moving the
objects from their original sites natu-
ral, historical or archaeological sites.
Seen from this perspective exhibi-
tion areas are dened not only by the
container and the contents but also
by the users visitors and museum
professionals that is to say the peo-
ple who enter this specic area and
share in the general experience of the
other visitors at the exhibition. The
place of the exhibition is thus a spe-
cic place of social interaction, the
effects of which can be assessed. Evi-
dence of this is provided by the deve-
lopment of visitor studies, and the
growth of a specic eld of research
connected with the communication
aspect of the place and with all the
35
 interactions specic to this place, or
to all the images and ideas that this
place might evoke.
2. As a result of the act of dis-
playing, exhibitions are seen today
as one of the main functions of the
museum which, according to the
latest denition by ICOM, acquires,
conserves, researches, communicates
and exhibits the tangible and intan-
gible heritage of humanity Accor-
ding to the PRC model (Reinwardt
Academie), exhibition is part of the
museums more general function of
communication, which also includes
policies for education and publica-
tion. From this point of view exhi-
bitions are a fundamental feature
of museums, in so far as these prove
themselves to be excellent places for
sensory perception, by presenting
objects to view (that is, visualisation),
monstration (the act of demonstra-
ting proof), ostention (initially the
holding up of sacred objects for ado-
ration). The visitor is in the presence
of concrete elements which can be
displayed for their own importance
(pictures, relics), or to evoke concepts
or mental constructs (transubstantia-
tion, exoticism). If museums can be
dened as places of musealisation
and visualisation, exhibitions then
appear as the explanatory visualisa-
tion of absent facts through objects,
and methods used to display these,
used as signs (Schrer, 2003). Show-
cases and picture rails are artices
which serve to separate the real
world and the imaginary world of
museums. They serve no other role
36
than to mark objectivity, to guaran-
tee distance (creating a distancing,
as Bertolt Brecht said of the theatre)
and let us know that we are in ano-
ther world, a world of the articial,
of the imaginary.
3. Exhibitions, when they are
understood as the entirety of the
objects displayed, include musealia,
museum objects or real things,
along with substitutes (casts, copies,
photos, etc.), display material (display
tools, such as show cases, partitions
or screens), and information tools
(such as texts, lms or other multi-
media), and utilitarian signage. From
this perspective the exhibition works
as a specic communication system
(McLuhan and Parker, 1969; Came-
ron, 1968) based on real things
and accompanied by other artefacts
which allow the visitor to better iden-
tify their signicance. In this context,
each of the elements present in the
exhibition (museum objects, substi-
tutes, texts, etc.) can be dened as an
exhibit. In such a situation it is not a
question of rebuilding reality, which
cannot be relocated in the museum
(a real thing in a museum is already
a substitute for reality and an exhi-
bition can only offer images which
are analogous with that reality). The
exhibition communicates reality
through this mechanism. Exhibits in
an exhibition work as signs (semio-
tics), and the exhibition is presented
as a communication process which
is most often unilateral, incomplete
and interpretable in ways that are
often very different. The term exhi-
bition as used here differs from that
of presentation, in so far as the rst
term corresponds, if not to a dis-
course, physical and didactic, then at
least to a large complex of items that
have been put on view, whereas the
second evokes the showing of goods
in a market or department store,
which could be passive, even if in
both cases a specialist (display desi-
gner, exhibition designer) is needed
to reach the desired level of quality.
These two levels presentation and
exhibition explain the difference
between exhibition design and exhi-
bit display. In the rst case the desi-
gner starts with the space and uses
the exhibits to furnish the space,
while in the second he starts with
the exhibits and strives to nd the
best way to express them, the best
language to make the exhibits speak.
These differences of expression have
varied during different periods,
according to tastes and styles, and
according to the relative importance
of the people installing the space
(decorators, exhibition designers,
display designers, stage designers),
but the modes of exhibition also vary
according to the disciplines and the
objective of the show. The answers
to the questions regarding to show
and to communicate cover a vast
eld allowing us to sketch the his-
tory and typology of exhibitions.
We can imagine the media that were
used (objects, texts, moving images,
environments, digital information
technology, mono-media and multi-
media exhibitions); according to
whether or not the exhibition was
of a prot-making nature (research
exhibition, blockbuster, stage show
exhibition, commercial exhibition),
and according to the general concept
of the museographer (exhibit design
for the object, for the point of view or
approach, etc.). And we note that the
seeing visitor has become more and
more involved in this great range of
possibilities.
4. The French words exposition
and exhibition differ, in so far as
exhibition now has a pejorative mea-
ning. Towards 1760 the word exhi-
bition could be used in French and
in English to indicate an exhibition
of paintings, but the meaning of the
word has been degraded in French to
indicate activities that are clearly for
show (sport exhibitions), or indecent
in the eyes of the society where the
exhibition takes place. This is the
case for the derivatives exhibitionist
and exhibitionism in English, which
refer even more specically to inde-
cent acts. Criticism of exhibitions
is often the most virulent when it
takes the approach that the exhibi-
tion is not what it should be and by
association, what a museum should
do but has become a hawker show,
far too commercial, or offensive to
the public.
5. The development of new tech-
nologies and computer-aided design
have popularised the creation of
museums on the internet with exhi-
bitions that can only be visited on
screen or via digital media. Rather
than using the term virtual exhibi-
37
 tion (the exact meaning of which
would be a possible exhibition, that
is to say a potential reply to the ques-
tion of showing), we prefer the
terms digital or cyber exhibition to
refer to these particular exhibitions
seen on the internet. They open up
possibilities (collecting objects, new
ways of display, analysis, etc) that
traditional exhibitions of material
objects do not always have. While
for the time being they are hardly
competition for exhibitions of real
objects in traditional museums, it
is not impossible that their develo-
pment will affect the methods cur-
rently used by museums.
38
Z DERIVATIVES: AGRICULTURAL EXHIBITION,
COMMERCIAL EXHIBITION, CYBER EXHIBITION, EXHIBIT,
EXHIBITION CATALOGUE, EXHIBITION CURATOR, EXHIBITION
DESIGN, EXHIBITION DESIGNER, EXHIBITION GALLERIES,
EXHIBITION PRACTICE, EXHIBITION SCENARIO, EXHIBITION
STUDIES, EXHIBITOR, IN SITU EXHIBITION, INTERNATIONAL
EXHIBITION, NATIONAL EXHIBITION, OPEN AIR EXHIBITION,
PERMANENT EXHIBITION (A LONG OR SHORT TERM
EXHIBITION), TEMPORARY EXHIBITION, TRAVELLING
EXHIBITION, TO EXHIBIT, UNIVERSAL EXHIBITION.
) CORRELATED: COMMUNICATION, DECORATOR,
DEMONSTRATION, DIDACTIC OBJECT, DIORAMA, DISPLAY,
DISPLAY TOOL, EXPOSITION, FAIR, FICTIONAL REALITY,
GALLERY, HANGING, INSTALLATION, INSTALLING SPACE,
MEANS, MECHANISM, MEDIA, MESSAGE, METAPHOR,
MONSTRATION, OPENING, OSTENTION, PICTURE RAIL,
POSTING, PRESENTATION, PROJECT MANAGER, REALITY,
REPRESENTATION, STAGE SETTING, SHOW, SHOWCASE,
SOCIAL SPACE, SPACE, STAGE DESIGN, VISUALISATION.
 H
HERITAGE
n. Equivalent in French: patrimoine; Spanish:
patrimonio; German: Natur- und Kulturerbe;
Italian: patrimonio; Portuguese: patrimnio.
The notion of heritage (patrimonium)
in Roman law referred to all the
assets received by succession, assets
which, according to law, are inhe-
rited by children from fathers and
mothers; family assets, as opposed
to assets acquired since marriage. By
analogy, two metaphorical uses were
born later. (1) Recently the expression
genetic heritage to describe the
hereditary features of a living being;
(2) earlier the concept of cultural
heritage seems to have appeared
in the 17th century (Leibniz, 1690)
before being taken up again by
the French Revolution (Puthod de
Maisonrouge, 1790); Boissy dAn-
glas, 1794). The term, however, has
many more or less broad meanings.
Because of its etymology, the term
and the notion that it infers have
spread more widely in Romance
languages since the 1930s (Desval-
les, 1995) than in the Anglo-Saxon
world, which favoured the term pro-
perty (goods) before adopting the
term heritage in around the 1950s,
while differentiating it from legacy.
In the same way the Italian govern-
ment, while one of the rst to reco-
gnise the term patrimonio, continued
to use the expression beni culturali
(cultural goods). The idea of heritage
is inevitably tied to that of potential
loss or disappearance as was the
case after the French Revolution
and at the same time to the will to
preserve these goods. Heritage can
be recognised by the fact that its loss
means a sacrice and that its conser-
vation also presupposes sacrices
(Babelon et Chastel, 1980).
1. Starting with the French Revo-
lution and throughout the 19th cen-
tury, heritage essentially referred to
immovable property and was gene-
rally confused with the idea of his-
torical monuments. A monument, in
the original sense of the word, is a
construction intended to perpetuate
the memory of somebody or some
thing. Alos Riegl identied three
categories of monuments: those
that were conceived intentionally
to commemorate a specic time or
a complex event in the past (inten-
tional monuments), those chosen
by subjective preferences (histori-
cal monuments), and nally all the
creations of mankind, independent
of their signicance or their origi-
nal intent (ancient monuments)
(Riegl, 1903). According to the prin-
39
 ciples of history, history of art, and
archaeology, the last two catego-
ries essentially belong to the cate-
gory of immovable heritage. Until
very recently the Directorate of the
Heritage of France, whose princi-
ple purpose was the preservation of
historical monuments, was separate
from the Directorate of the Museums
of France (French Museums Board).
Today it is not unusual to nd peo-
ple supporting this differentiation,
which is at the very least strict. Even
when expanded worldwide under
the aegis of UNESCO, the idea that
is fostered especially by ICOMOS,
the equivalent of ICOM for histori-
cal monuments, is rst of all based
essentially on monuments and on
groups of monuments and sites.
Thus the Convention on the World
Cultural Heritage stipulates: For
the purposes of this Convention, the
following shall be considered cultu-
ral heritage: monuments: architec-
tural works, works of monumental
sculpture and painting, [] groups
of buildings: groups of separate or
connected buildings, [] because of
their architecture, [] sites: works
of man or the combined works of
nature and man, []. For the purpo-
ses of this Convention the following
shall be considered natural heritage:
natural features, [] geological
and physiographical formations
[] natural sites or natural areas. tage denes all the goods received or
(UNESCO 1972).
2. From the mid 1950s, the notion
of heritage gradually incorporated
all material evidence of man and his
environment and became conside-
40
rably wider. Thus folklore heritage,
scientic heritage and then industrial
heritage were gradually integrated
into the concept of heritage. The de-
nition of heritage in French-speaking
Qubec also followed this general
tendency: May be considered heri-
tage all objects or groups of objects,
material or intangible, that are col-
lectively recognised or appropriated
for their value as evidence and histo-
rical memory and which merit being
protected, preserved, and enhanced
(Arpin, 2000). This concept refers to
all natural or man-made goods and
values, whether material or intan-
gible, without restriction of time or
space, whether they be simply inheri-
ted from the forbears of earlier gene-
rations or gathered and preserved to
be transmitted to the descendants
of future generations. Heritage is a
public good; its preservation must
be assumed by the community when
individuals fail to do so. Individual
local natural and cultural characte-
ristics contribute to the conception
and building of the universal cha-
racter of heritage. The concept of
heritage differs from the concept of
inheritance with regard to time and
events: whereas inheritance is iden-
tied immediately after a death or
when there is a transferral of goods
from one generation to another, heri-
gathered and safeguarded by earlier
generations that will be transmitted
to their descendants. To a certain
extent, heritage can be a line of inhe-
ritances.
 3. For some years the notion of heri-
tage, essentially dened on the basis
of a western concept of transmission,
has felt the impact of the globalisation
of ideas, such as the relatively recent
concept of intangible heritage. This
concept, of Asian origin (in particu-
lar from Japan and Korea) is founded
on the idea that transmission, to be
effective, must essentially be done by
human carriers, from whence evol-
ved the idea of living human treasu-
res: Living human treasure refers
to a person who excels above others
in performing music, dance, games,
plays and rituals which are of outs-
tanding artistic and historical value
in their respective countries as envi-
saged in the Recommendation on the
Safeguarding of Traditional Cultures
and Folklore (UNESCO, 1993).
This principle was accepted inter-
nationally and endorsed in the 2003
Convention for the Safeguarding of
the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
The intangible cultural heritage
means the practices, representations,
expressions, knowledge, skills as
well as the instruments, objects,
artefacts and cultural spaces asso-
ciated therewith that communities,
groups and, in some cases, indivi-
duals recognize as part of their cultu-
ral heritage. This intangible cultural
heritage, transmitted from generation
to generation, is constantly recreated
by communities and groups in res-
ponse to their environment, their
interaction with nature and their his-
tory, and provides them with a sense
of identity and continuity, thus pro-
moting respect for cultural diversity
and human creativity. For the purpo-
ses of this Convention, consideration
will be given solely to such intangible
cultural heritage as is compatible
with existing international human
rights instruments, as well as with
the requirements of mutual respect
among communities, groups and
individuals, and of sustainable deve-
lopment. (UNESCO, 2003).
4. Heritage covers a eld that has
become increasingly complex, and in
the past few years the uncertainties
of its transmission have led to more
focused thinking on the mechanisms
of building and extending heritage:
what exactly is the process of heri-
tage building? Much contemporary
research analyses the institution of
heritage building beyond the empiri-
cal approach, seeing it as the result of
strategies and interventions focused
on marking and signals (framing).
Thus the idea of heritage building is
necessary to understand the position
in society that heritage represents,
rather as others speak of the idea of
artication (Shapiro, 2004) with
regard to works of art. Heritage is a
cultural process or performance that
is concerned with the types of pro-
duction and the negotiation of cultu-
ral identity, individual and collective
memory, and social and cultural
values (Smith, 2007). If we accept
that heritage is the result of the foun-
ding of a certain number of values,
this implies that these values are the
basis of heritage. These values should
be examined, but also sometimes
contested.
41
 5. The institution of heritage
also has its detractors: people who
question its origins and the abusive
fetishist value attached to the forms
of the underlying culture, in the
name of western humanism. In the
strictest sense of the word, that is to
say in the anthropological sense, our
cultural heritage is only made up of
very modest practices and skills. To
a far greater extent it depends on the
ability to make and use these tools,
especially when these are xed as
objects inside a museum showcase.
Too often we forget that the most ela-
borate and powerful tool invented by
man is the concept, the instrument
for developing thought, which is very
difcult to arrange in a showcase.
Cultural heritage understood as the
sum total of the common evidence of
humankind has been severely criti-
cised for being a new dogma (Choay,
1992) in a society which has lost its
religious bearings. It is possible,
moreover, to list the successive stages
of building this recent product: heri-
tage reappropriation (Vicq dAzyr,
1794), spiritual connotation (Hegel,
1807), mystical, disinterested conno-
tation (Renan, 1882) and nally,
humanism (Malraux, 1947). The
42
notion of collective cultural heritage,
which only transposes the legal and
economic lexicon to the moral eld,
appears suspicious, to say the least,
and can be analysed as being part of
that which Marx and Engels called
ideology, that is to say a by-product
of a socio-economic context inten-
ded to serve special interests. The
internationalisation of the concept
of heritage is [] not only false, but
dangerous in so far as one imposes a
whole set of knowledge and prejudi-
ces whose criteria are the expression
of values built on aesthetic, moral,
and cultural received ideas, in short
an ideology of a caste in a society
whose structures are not compati-
ble with those of the third world in
general and Africa in particular
(Adotevi, 1971). It is all the more
suspect because it coexists with the
private nature of economic property
and seems to serve as the consolation
prize for the deprived.
Z DERIVATIVES: HERITOLOGY, INHERITANCE.
) CORRELATED: COMMUNITY, CULTURAL PROPERTY,
CULTURAL RELIC, EXHIBIT, EVIDENCE, IDENTITY, IMAGE,
LEGACY, LIVING HUMAN TREASURE, MATERIAL CULTURE,
MEMORY, MESSAGE, MONUMENT, NATIONAL TREASURE,
OBJECT, PATRIMONY, REALITY, SEMIOPHORE (SEE
OBJECT) SUBJECT, TERRITORY, THINGS, VALUE, WITNESS.
 I
INSTITUTION
n. (From the Latin institutio, convention, set-
ting up, establishment, arrangement). Equiva-
lent in French: institution; Spanish: institucin;
German: Institution; Italian: istituzione; Portu-
guese: instituio.
Generally speaking an institution
indicates a convention established by
mutual agreement between people,
being thus arbitrary but also histori-
cally dated. Institutions are elements
in the broad range of solutions that
mankind has created to answer the
problems raised by the natural needs
of life in a society (Malinowski,
1944). More specically, institution
refers to an organism that is public or
private, established by society to ll a
specic need. The museum is an ins-
titution in the sense that it is gover-
ned by an identied legal system of
public or private law (see the terms
Management and Public). Whether
it is based on the concept of public
trust (in Anglo-Saxon law) or public
ownership (in France from the Revo-
lution), demonstrates, beyond the
differences in conventions, a mutual
agreement between the people in a
society, that is to say an institution.
In French, when the term is asso-
ciated with the general qualier
museal (institution musale, in the
common sense of that which rela-
tes to museums) it is often used as a
synonym for museum, most often
to avoid excessive repetition of the
word museum. The concept of ins-
titution, for which there are three
precise accepted meanings, is never-
theless central to debates regarding
museums.
1. There are two levels of institu-
tions, according to the nature of the
need they are intended to satisfy.
This need may be rst of all biolo-
gical (need to eat, to reproduce, to
sleep, etc.) or secondly the result of
the demands of living in a society
(need for organisation, defence,
health, etc.). These two levels cor-
respond to two types of institution
that are unequally restrictive: meals,
marriage, lodging on the one hand,
and the State, the army, schools, hos-
pitals, on the other. In so far as they
meet a social need (sensory relation
to objects) museums belong to the
second category.
2. ICOM denes museum as a per-
manent institution in the service of
society and its development. In this
sense the institution is a construction
created by man in the museal (see this
term) eld, and organised in order to
enter into a sensory relationship with
43
 objects. The museum institution,
created and maintained by society,
rests on a collection of standards
and rules (preventive conservation,
forbidden to touch objects or display
substitutes while presenting them
as originals) which are founded on
a value system: preservation of heri-
tage, presentation of works of art
and unique pieces, the dissemination
of current scientic knowledge, etc.
Emphasising the institutional nature
of museum thus means strengthening
its normative role and the authority it
has in science and the ne arts, for
example, or the idea that museums
remain in the service of society and
its development.
3. In contrast to the English, which
does not precisely differentiate
between them (and in general to the
way they are used in Belgium and in
Canada too), the terms institution and
establishment are not synonymous.
Museum, as an institution, is diffe-
rent from museum as an establish-
ment, a specic concrete place: The
museal establishment is a concrete
form of the museal institution
(Maroevic, 2007). One should note
that questioning of the institution,
even purely and simply denying it (as
in the case of Malrauxs imaginary
museum or the ctitious museum of
the artist Marcel Broodthaers) does
not mean that it has left the museal
eld, in so far as the museal eld can
44
extend beyond the institutional fra-
mework. In its strict sense, the term
virtual museum (existing in essence
but not in fact) takes account of these
museal experiences on the margin of
institutional reality.
This is why in many countries, in
particular in Canada and Belgium,
people use the expression museal
institution (institution musale) to
identify an establishment which
does not have all the characteristics
of a traditional museum. By museal
institutions, we mean non-prot esta-
blishments, museums, exhibition and
interpretation centres which, besides
the functions of acquisition, conser-
vation, research and management of
collections that some may carry out,
have in common that they are pla-
ces of education and dissemination
dedicated to the arts, history and the
sciences. (Socit des muses qub-
cois, Observatoire de la culture et des
communauts du Qubec, 2004).
4. Finally, the term museal insti-
tution can be de ned, like nan-
cial institution (the IMF or the
World Bank) as all the national or
international bodies which govern
museum operations, such as ICOM
or the former Direction des muses
de France.
Z DERIVATIVES: INSTITUTIONAL, MUSEAL INSTITUTION.
) CORRELATED: ESTABLISHMENT, PUBLIC DOMAIN,
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP, PUBLIC TRUST, VIRTUAL MUSEUM.
 M
MANAGEMENT
n. Equivalent French: gestion; Spanish: ges-
tin; German: Verwaltung, Administration; Ita-
lian: gestione; Portuguese: gesto.
Museum management is dened
today as the action of ensuring the
running of the museums adminis-
trative business and, more gene-
rally, all the activities which are
not directly attached to the specic
elds of museum work (preservation,
research and communication). In this
regard, museum management essen-
tially encompasses tasks relating to
nancial (accounting, management
control, nances) and legal respon-
sibilities, to security and upkeep, to
staff management and to marketing
as well as to strategic procedures
and the general planning of museum
activities. The term management is
of Anglo-Saxon origin (although
the Anglo-Saxon term comes from
the French mange and mnage),
and is currently used in French with
the same meaning. The guidelines
or style of management illustrate
a certain concept of museums in
particular its relationship to public
service.
Traditionally the term administra-
tion (from the Latin administratio,
service, aid, handling) was used to
dene this type of museum activity,
but also, more generally, all the acti-
vities necessary to make a museum
function. The treatise of museology
by George Brown Goode, Museum
Administration (1896), examines the
aspects connected with the study of
the display of collections and the daily
management, while also addressing
the overall vision of the museum and
its integration into society. Rightfully
derived from the civil service ratio-
nale, the act of administering means,
whether referring to a public or a pri-
vate service, ensuring that it operates
properly while taking responsibility
for initiating and running all its acti-
vities. The notion of (public) service,
or even, with its religious undertones,
that of vocation, is closely related to
administration.
We are aware of the bureaucratic
connotation of the term adminis-
tration since it is used in connec-
tion with the (dys)function of public
authorities. So it is not surprising that
the general evolution of economic
theory in the last quarter of a century,
favouring the market economy, has
led to increasingly frequent recourse
to the concept of management,
which had been in use for a long
45
 time within prot-making organisa-
tions. The concepts of market launch
and museum marketing, like the
development of tools for museums
that have resulted from businesses
(dening strategies, focusing on the
public/visitor, resource management,
fundraising, etc.) has considerably
changed the museums themselves.
Thus some of the conicts regarding
museum organisation and policies
have been directly conditioned by
the conict, within the museum
itself, between a market rationale and
a more traditional rationale of gover-
nance by public authorities. The
result has been the development of
new forms of nancing (expansion of
the ranges of museum shops, renting
of premises, reintroducing entrance
fees, developing popular temporary
exhibitions blockbusters or even
selling objects from the collection.
Increasingly these tasks which were
auxiliary when they rst began have
had a real impact on the conduct of
other museum tasks, to the point
that they have sometimes been deve-
loped to the detriment of the other
operations required for preservation,
research and even communication.
The specicity of museum mana-
gement, which may be structured
around the sometimes contradictory
or hybrid logics of the market on the
one hand, and the public authorities
on the other hand, derives from the
fact that it is structured around the
logic of giving (Mauss, 1923), through
donations of objects and money or
the actions of volunteers and asso-
46
ciations of friends of the museum.
Although donations and volunteer
activities are properly and implicitly
taken into account, this aspect has
been less examined for its medium
and long-term impact on museum
management.
Z DERIVATIVES: MANAGER, COLLECTION
MANAGEMENT
) CORRELATED: ADMINISTRATION, BLOCKBUSTERS,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ENTRANCE FEES, FEASIBILITY
STUDY, FUNDRAISING, FRIENDS, HUMAN RESOURCES,
MISSION STATEMENT, MUSEUM MARKETING, MUSEUM
TRUSTEES, NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS, PERFORMANCE
MARKERS, PROJECTS, PLANNING, STRATEGY,
VOLUNTEERS.
MEDIATION
(INTERPRETATION)
n. (from 15 th century Vulgar Latin: mediatio,
de mediare) Equivalent in French: mdiation;
Spanish: mediacin; German: Vermittlung; Ita-
lian: mediazione; Portuguese: mediao.
Mediation is the translation of the
French mdiation, which has the
same general museum meaning as
interpretation. Mediation is dened
as an action aimed at reconciling par-
ties or bringing them to agreement.
In the context of the museum, it is
the mediation between the museum
public and what the museum gives
its public to see; intercession, inter-
mediate, mediator. Etymologically
we nd in mediation the root med,
meaning middle, a root which can
be found in many languages besides
English (Spanish medio, German
mitte) and which reminds us that
mediation is connected with the idea
of being in the median position, that
of a third element which places itself
between two distant poles and acts
as an intermediary. While this posi-
tion characterises the legal aspects of
mediation, where someone negotiates
in order to reconcile adversaries and
reach a modus vivendi, it also points
to the meaning that this concept
takes in the cultural and scientic e
ld of museology. Here too mediation
is an in-between, lling a space that it
will try to reduce, creating a connec-
tion or even acceptance.
1. The notion of mediation works
on several levels: on the philosophical
level it served Hegel and his disciples
to describe the movement of history
itself. Dialectics, the driving force
of history, advances by successive
mediations: a rst situation (the the-
sis) must pass through the mediation
of its opposite (antithesis) to progress
to a new condition (synthesis) which
retains something of each of the two
preceding moments.
The general concept of media-
tion also leads us to think about
the institution of culture itself as
the transmission of that common
heritage which unites the members
of a community and in which they
recognise themselves. In this sense
of the word mediation, it is through
the mediation of its culture that indi-
viduals perceive and understand the
world and their own identity; several
writers speak of symbolic mediation.
Again in the cultural eld, mediation
acts to analyse the making public of
ideas and cultural products their
being taken care of by the media
and to describe their circulation
in the whole social sphere. The
cultural sphere is seen as a dynamic,
nebulous area where products mix
together and take over from one ano-
ther. Here the reciprocal mediation
of cultural products leads to the idea
of intermediality, of the relationship
between medias and the way in which
one media television or cinema for
example translates forms of pro-
duction made in another media (a
novel adapted for the cinema). These
creations reach their targets by one
or other of the various technical aids
that make up their mediatisation.
From this angle, analysis shows that
many mediations are set in motion by
complex chains of different agents
to guarantee content in the cultural
sphere and ensure that this content
reaches a broad public.
2. In museology the term media-
tion has been in frequent use in
France and in European French-
speaking zones for more than a
decade, when speaking of cultural
mediation, or scientic mediation
and mediator. Essentially it refers
to a whole range of actions carried
out in a museal context in order to
build bridges between that which
is exhibited (seeing) and the mea-
nings that these objects and sites may
carry (knowledge). Mediation some-
times seeks to favour the sharing of
experiences and social interactions
between visitors, and the emergence
of common references. This is an
educational communication strategy,
47
 which mobilises diverse technolo-
gies around the collections exhibited
to give visitors the means to better
understand certain aspects of these
and to share in their appropriation.
The term thus touches on the nei-
ghbouring museological concepts of
communication and museum public
relations, and especially interpreta-
tion, very much present in the Anglo-
Saxon museum world and on North
American sites where it overlaps
to a great extent with the notion of
mediation. Interpretation, like media-
tion, assumes a divergence, a distance
that must be overcome between that
which is immediately perceived and
the underlying meanings of natural,
cultural or historical phenomena.
Like means of mediation, interpre-
tation materialises in interpersonal
human actions and in aids which
enhance the straightforward display
of exhibited objects to suggest their
meaning and importance. Born in the
context of American natural parks,
the notion of interpretation has since
expanded to mean the hermeneutic
nature of the experience of visiting
museums and sites. Thus it can be
dened as a revelation and unveiling
which leads visitors to understand,
and then to appreciate, and nally to
protect the heritage which it takes as
its object.
In the end, mediation compri-
ses a central notion in a philosophy
which is hermeneutic and reective
(Paul Ricur). It plays a fundamen-
tal role in each visitors quest for self-
knowledge, a knowledge facilitated
48
by the museum. When the viewer
stands face to face with works pro-
duced by other humans it is through
mediation that he or she can arrive at
a special subjectivity which can ins-
pire self-knowledge and understan-
ding of ones own human adventure.
This approach makes the museum,
the custodian of the evidence and
signs of humanity, one of the best
places for this inescapable media-
tion which, in offering contact with
the world of cultural works, leads
each person on the path of a greater
understanding of self, and of reality
as a whole.
Z DERIVATIVES: MEDIATION, MEDIATOR, TO MEDIATE.
) CORRELATED: ACTIVITIES, EDUCATION,
INTERCESSION, INTERPRETATION, POPULARISATION,
PUBLIC RELATIONS, VISITOR EXPERIENCE.
MUSEAL
adj. Equivalent in French: musal; Spanish:
museal; German: museal; Italian: museale;
Portuguese: museal.
The word has two meanings in
French (one when it is used as an
adjective to qualify museum and
another when it is used as a noun),
but only one in English, where it has
been rarely used until now, to qualify
a eld covering more than the classi-
cal notion of museum. The museal
eld covers not only the creation,
development and operation of the
museum institution but also reec-
tions on its foundations and issues.
The museal eld of reference is cha-
racterised by a specic approach,
which establishes a viewpoint on
reality with regard to the world of
heritage (to consider something from
the museal angle, for example, means
to ask oneself whether it is possible
to preserve it for exhibition to the
public). Museology can thus be de-
ned as all the attempts to theorise
or think critically about the museal
eld, or as the ethics and philosophy
of that which is museal.
1. Museal identies a specic
relation to reality (Strnsk, 1987;
Gregorov, 1980). This places it
alongside politics and on the same
level as social life, religion, demo-
graphics, economics and so on. Each
example is a sphere or an original
eld in which problems will be raised
which will be answered by concepts.
Thus the same phenomenon can
be found at the point where several
levels meet or, to speak in terms of
multidimensional statistical analy-
sis, it will project itself onto several
heterogeneous levels. For example,
GMO (genetically modied orga-
nisms) can be simultaneously a
technical problem (biotechnology),
a health problem (risks regarding
the biosphere), a political problem
(ecological issues), and also a museal
problem: some social museums have
decided to stage exhibitions on the
risks and the issues of GMO.
2. This position of museal as a
theoretical eld of reference opens
considerable avenues to expanded
thinking, because the museum as
institution now appears to be just one
illustration or example of the entire
eld. This has two consequences:
(1) It was not museums that gave rise
to museology, but rather museology
that founded museums (the Coperni-
can revolution); (2) This allows us to
understand that experiences which
are of a different nature to those
usually identied with museums
(collections, building, institution)
are part of the same problem, and
to accept museums of substitutes,
museums without collections, extra-
mural museums, towns as museums
(Quatremre de Quincy, 1796),
and ecomuseums or even cyber
museums.
3. The specicity of the museal
eld, in other words, that which
makes it unequivocal compared
to neighbouring elds, lies in two
aspects: (1) sensory display, which sets
the museal apart from the textual,
managed in a library, which offers
a documentation relayed through
the medium of writing (mainly that
which is printed; books) and which
requires not only the knowledge of
a language but also the ability to
read. This procures an experience
which is more abstract and more
theoretical at the same time. On the
other hand, a museum does not need
any of these aptitudes, because the
documentation it proposes is above
all sensory, perceivable by sight and
sometimes by hearing, more rarely by
the three other senses of touch, taste
and smell. This means that an illi-
terate person or even a young child
can always gain something from a
museum visit, whereas they would
49
 be incapable of using the resources
of a library. This also explains expe-
riences of visits adapted for blind or
partially sighted people, where other
senses are called in to play (hearing
and especially touch) to discover
the sensory aspects of the exhibits.
A painting or a sculpture is made to
be seen rst of all, and reference to
a text (or reading a placard if there
is one) only comes afterwards and
is not absolutely essential. Thus we
can say when of the museum that it
fulls a sensory documentary func-
tion (Deloche, 2007). (2) Margina-
lising reality, because the museum
species itself while separating
itself (Lebensztein, 1981). Unlike a
political eld where it is possible to
theorise about the management of
the concrete lives of people in society
through the mediation of institutions
such as the State, that which is museal
on the other hand serves to theorise
about the way in which an institution
creates, through separation and de-
contextualisation, in short through
the putting into images, a space for
sensory display at the margin of all
reality (Sartre). This is the essence
of a utopia, that is to say a comple-
tely imaginary space, certainly sym-
bolic but not necessarily intangible.
This second point characterises what
one might call the utopian function
of museums, because in order to
change the world, one must be able
to imagine it otherwise, and thus to
distance oneself from it, which is
why utopia as a ction is not necessa-
rily a lack or a deciency, but rather
the imagining of a different world.
50
Z DERIVATIVES: MUSEAL FIELD, MUSEALIA,
MUSEALITY, MUSEALISATION.
) CORRELATED: MUSEOLOGY, MUSEUM,
MUSEUMIFICATION (PEJORATIVE), REALITY, SENSORY
DISPLAY, SENSORY EXPERIENCE, SPECIFIC RELATION.
MUSEALISATION
n. Equivalent in French: musalisation;
Spanish: musealisacin; German: Museali-
sierung; Italian: musealizazione; Portuguese:
musealisao.
In the accepted understanding of
the term, musealisation means the
placing in the museum, or more
generally, transforming a centre of
life, which may be a centre of human
activity or a natural site, into a sort
of museum. The expression herita-
gisation is undoubtedly a better des-
cription of this principle, which rests
essentially on the idea of preservation
of an object or a place, but does not
cover the entire museal process. The
neologism museumication transla-
tes the pejorative idea of the petri-
cation (or mummication) of a living
area, which may result from such a
process and which may be found
in numerous critical reviews about
the musealisation of the world.
From a strictly museological point
of view, musealisation is the opera-
tion of trying to extract, physically
or conceptually, something from its
natural or cultural environment and
giving it a museal status, transfor-
ming it into a musealium or museum
object, that is to say, bringing it into
the museal eld.
 The process of musealisation does
not consist of taking an object to
place it within the physical connes
of the museum, as Zbynek Strnsk
explains. Through the change of
context and the process of selection
and display, the status of the object
changes. Whether it is a religious
object, a useful object or one for
enjoyment, animal or vegetable, even
something that may not be clearly
conceived as an object, once inside
the museum it becomes the mate-
rial and intangible evidence of man
and his environment and a source of
study and exhibition, thus acquiring
a specic cultural reality.
The recognition of this change in
nature caused Strnsk, in 1970, to
propose the term musealia to iden-
tify objects which had undergone the
process of musealisation and could
thus claim the status of museum
objects. The term was translated into
French as musalie (see Object).
Musealisation begins with a phase
of separation (Malraux, 1951) or of
suspension (Dotte, 1986): objects
or things (real things) are separated
from their original context to be stu-
died as documents representing the
reality to which they formerly belon-
ged. A museum object is no longer
an object to be used or exchanged,
but now delivers authentic evidence
of reality. This removal (Desvalles,
1998) from reality is already an initial
form of substitution. An object sepa-
rated from the context from where
it was taken is already no more than
a substitute for the reality of which
it is supposed to be evidence. This
transfer, by the separation that has
been made from the original envi-
ronment, inevitably causes a loss of
information, which can be seen most
clearly from illegal archaeological
digs where the context of the objects
has been completely lost as they were
unearthed. It is for this reason that
musealisation, as a scientic pro-
cess, necessarily includes the essen-
tial museum activities: preservation
(selection, acquisition, collection
management, conservation), research
(including cataloguing) and com-
munication (via exhibition, publi-
cations, etc.) or, from another point
of view, the activities around the
selection, collection and display of
what has become musealia. At most,
the work of musealisation gives an
image which is only a substitute for
the reality from which these objects
were chosen. This complex substi-
tute, or model of reality (built within
the museum) comprises museality,
that is to say a specic value which
documents reality, but is in no way
reality itself.
Musealisation goes beyond the
logic of collections alone and is part
of the tradition founded on rational
processes developed with the inven-
tion of modern sciences. The object
carrying the information or the
document-object, once musealised,
is incorporated into the core of the
museums scientic activity just as
this has developed since the Renais-
sance. The purpose of this activity is
to explore reality by means of sen-
51
 sory perception, experiment, and
study of its constituent parts. This
scientic perspective conditions the
objective and repeated study of the
thing which has been conceptuali-
zed into an object, beyond the aura
which obscures its meaning. Not
contemplating, but seeing: the scien-
tic museum not only displays beau-
tiful objects, it invites the visitor to
think about their meaning. The act
of musealisation leads the museum
away from being a temple to make it
part of a process which brings it clo-
ser to the laboratory.
) CORRELATED: COLLECTING, COMMUNICATION,
DISPLAY, DOCUMENT-OBJECT, HOARDING, MUSEALIA,
MUSEALITY, MUSEUM OBJECT, PRESERVATION, RESEARCH,
RELIC, SELECTION, SEPARATION, SUSPENSION.
MUSEOGR APHY
(MUSEUM PR ACTICE)
n. (derived from Latin museographia) French
equivalent: musographie, Spanish: museo-
grafa; German: Museographie; Italian: museo-
grafia; Portuguese: museografia.
The term museography rst appeared
in the 18th century (Neikel, 1727) and
is older than the word museology. It
has three specic meanings:
1. Currently museography is
essentially dened as the practical
or applied aspect of museology, that
is to say the techniques which have
been developed to full museal ope-
rations, in particular with regard
to the planning and tting out of
the museum premises, conserva-
tion, restoration, security and exhi-
52
bition. In contrast to museology,
the word museography has long
been used to identify the practical
activities associated with museums.
The term is regularly used in the
French-speaking world, but rarely in
the English-speaking one, where
museum practice is preferred. Many
museologists from Central and Eas-
tern Europe have used the term
applied museology, that is to say, the
practical application of techniques
resulting from the study of museo-
logy, a science undergoing develop-
ment.
2. In French the use of the term
museography identies the art (or
the techniques) of exhibitions. For
some years the term expography
(exhibit design) has been proposed
for the techniques involved in exhi-
bitions, whether they be in a museum
or in a non-museal space. Generally
speaking, what we call the museo-
graphical programme covers deni-
tion of the contents of the exhibition
and its requirements, as well as the
functional links between the exhi-
bition spaces and the other museum
areas. This denition does not mean
that museography (museum practice)
is dened only by that part of the
museum which is seen by the visi-
tor. Museographers (museum desi-
gners or exhibit designers), like other
museum professionals, take into
account the scientic programme
and collection management, and aim
to display the objects selected by the
curator in a suitable manner. They
must know methods of conserva-
tion and how to inventorize museum
objects. They create the scenario for
the contents and propose a form of
language which includes additional
media to aid understanding. They
are concerned with the needs of
the public and employ the commu-
nication methods most suitable for
putting across the message of the
exhibition. Their role, often as the
head of a project, is to coordinate
all the scientic and technical spe-
cialists working within a museum:
organising them, sometimes clashing
with them and arbitrating. Other
specic posts have been created to
full these tasks: the management
of the art works or objects is left to
the registrars, the head of security is
responsible for surveillance and the
tasks carried out by this department,
the conservator is a specialist in pre-
ventive conservation and in remedial
conservation measures, and even
restoration. It is in this context, and
in interrelation with the different
departments, that museographers
concern themselves with the exhibi-
tion tasks. Museography is distinct
from scenography (exhibition or
stage design), which is understood to
mean all the techniques required for
installing and tting out display spa-
ces, just as it is different from inte-
rior design. Certainly stage design
and museum interior design are a
part of museography, which brings
museums closer to other methods
of visualisation, but other elements
must also be taken into account such
as the public, its understanding of
the message, and the preservation
of heritage. These aspects make
museographers (or exhibition spe-
cialists) the intermediary between
the collections curator, the architect
and the public. Their role varies,
however, depending whether or not
the museum or the exhibition site
has a curator to lead the project.
The further development of the role
of some specialists within museums
(architects, artists, exhibition cura-
tors, etc.) has led to a constant ne-
tuning of the museogaphers role as
intermediary.
3. Formerly and through its ety-
mology, museography referred to
the description of the contents of
a museum. Just as a bibliography
is one of the fundamental stages of
scientic research, museography
was devised as a way to facilitate the
search for documentary sources of
objects in order to develop their sys-
tematic study. This meaning endured
throughout the 19th century and still
continues today in some languages,
in particular Russian.
Z DERIVATIVES: MUSEOGRAPHER, MUSEOGRAPHIC.
) CORRELATED: EXHIBITION DESIGN, EXHIBITION
PRACTICE, INTERIOR DESIGN, MUSEUM FUNCTIONS,
MUSEUM OPERATIONS, MUSEUM PRACTICE.
MUSEOLOGY
(MUSEUM STUDIES)
n. Equivalent in French: musologie; Spa-
nish: museologa; German: Museologie,
Museumswissenschaft, Museumskunde; Ita-
lian: museologia; Portuguese: museologia.
53
 Etymologically speaking museo-
logy is the study of the museum (or
museum studies), and not its practice,
which is museography. But the term
museology and its derivative museo-
logical, accepted in its wider sense in
the 1950s, now has ve clearly dis-
tinct meanings.
1. The rst and most commonly
accepted meaning applies the term
museology to anything relating to
museums and generally listed, in
this dictionary, under the heading
museal. Thus one might speak of
the museological departments of a
library (the reserved section or the
numismatic cabinet), museological
questions (relating to museums) and
so on. This is often the meaning used
in Anglo-Saxon countries, which has
even spread from North America
to Latin-American countries. Thus,
where there is no specic recognised
profession, such as in France where
the general term curator (conserva-
teur) would be used, the term museo-
logist applies to the entire museum
profession (for example in Qubec),
in particular to consultants given the
task of drawing up a museum project
or creating and staging an exhibition.
This use is not favoured here.
2. The second meaning of the
term is generally accepted in many
western university networks and is
close to the etymological sense of
the word: museum studies. The most
commonly used denition is that
proposed by Georges Henri Rivire:
Museology: an applied science, the
science of the museum. Museology
54
studies its history, its role in society,
the specic forms of research and
physical conservation, activities
and dissemination, organisation
and functioning, new or musealised
architecture, sites that have been
received or chosen, its typology
and its deontology (Rivire, 1981).
In some ways museology contrasts
with museography, which refers to
the practices attached to museo-
logy. Anglo-Americans are generally
reluctant to accept the invention of
new sciences and have favoured
the expression museum studies, par-
ticularly in Great Britain where the
term museology is still rarely used
to date. Although the term has been
increasingly frequently applied inter-
nationally since the 1950s, along with
the increased interest in museums, it
is still rarely used by people who live
with museums on a daily basis, and
the use of the term remains limited
to people who observe the museum
from the outside. This use of museo-
logy, widely accepted by professio-
nals, has gradually established itself
in Romance countries from the 1960s,
replacing the term museography.
3. From the 1960s in Central and
Eastern Europe, museology gra-
dually came to be considered as a
genuine eld of scientic research
(albeit a developing science) and an
independent discipline examining
reality. This view, which greatly
inuenced ICOFOM in the years
1980-1990, presents museology as
the study of a specic relationship
between man and reality, a study in
which museums, a phenomenon set
in a specic time, are only one of the
possible manifestations. Museology
is a self-differentiating, independent
scientic discipline the subject of
which is a specic attitude of man
to reality expressed objectively in
various museum forms throughout
history, an expression of and a
proportionate part of memory sys-
tems. Museology, by nature a social
science, pertains to the sphere of
mnemonic and documentary scien-
tic disciplines, and contributes to
the understanding of Man within
society (Strnsk, 1980). This parti-
cular approach, freely criticised (the
determination to impose museology
as a science and to cover the whole
eld of heritage seemed pretentious
to more than one), but it is nonethe-
less fertile with regard to its implica-
tions. Thus the object of museology
is not the museum, since this is a
creation that is relatively recent in
terms of the history of humanity.
Taking this statement as a starting
point, the concept of a specic rela-
tion of man to reality, sometimes
referred to as museality (Waidacher,
1996), was gradually dened. Thus
following in the wake of the Brno
school which prevailed at the time
one could dene museology as A
science studying the specic relation
of Man to reality, consisting of the
purposeful and systematic collecting
and conservation of selected inani-
mate, material, mobile, and mainly
three-dimensional objects documen-
ting the development of nature and
society (Gregorov, 1980). How-
ever, the likening of museology to a
science even under development
has slowly been abandoned in so
far as neither its object of study, nor
its methods, truly correspond to the
epistemological criteria of a specic
scientic approach.
4. The new museology (la nouvelle
musologie in French, where the
concept originated) widely inuen-
ced museology in the 1980s, rst
gathering some French theoreticians
and then spreading internationally
from 1984. Referring to a few pio-
neers who had published innova-
tive texts since 1970, this current of
thought emphasised the social role
of museums and its interdisciplinary
character, along with its new styles of
expression and communication. New
museology was particularly interes-
ted in new types of museums, concei-
ved in contrast to the classical model
in which collections are the centre of
interest. These new museums are eco-
museums, social museums, scientic
and cultural centres, and generally
speaking, most of the new propo-
sals aimed at using the local heritage
to promote local development. In
English museum literature the term
New Museology appeared at the end
of the 1980s (Virgo, 1989) and is a
critical discourse on the social and
political role of museums lending
a certain confusion to the spread of
the French term, which is less known
to the English-speaking public.
5. According to a fth meaning
of the term, which we favour here
55
 because it includes all the others,
museology covers a much wider eld
comprising all the efforts at theori-
sation and critical thinking about
the museal eld. In other words,
the common denominator of this
eld could be dened as a specic
relation between man and reality,
which is expressed by documenting
that which is real and can be grasped
through direct sensory contact. This
denition does not reject a priori any
form of museum, including the oldest
(Quiccheberg) and the most recent
(cyber museums), because it tends to
concern itself with a domain which
is freely open to all experiments in
the museal eld. Nor is it limited to
people who call themselves museo-
logists. We should note that if some
protagonists have made museology
their eld of choice, to the point of
presenting themselves as museolo-
gists, others tied to their professio-
nal branch who only approach the
museal sphere on occasion prefer to
keep a certain distance from museo-
logists, even though they have, or
have had, a fundamental inuence
in the development of this eld of
study (Bourdieu, Baudrillard, Dago-
gnet, Debray, Foucault, Haskell,
McLuhan, Nora or Pomian). The
guidelines in a map of the museal
eld can be traced in two different
directions: either with reference to
the main functions inherent to the
eld (documentation, collecting,
display and safeguarding, research,
communication), or by considering
the different branches of knowledge
56
which examine museology from time
to time.
With this last view in mind, Ber-
nard Deloche proposed dening
museology as museal philosophy.
Museology is the philosophy of the
museal eld which has two tasks:
(1) it serves as metatheory for the
science of intuitive concrete docu-
mentation, (2) it provides regulating
ethics for all institutions responsible
for managing the intuitive concrete
documentary function (Deloche,
2001).
Z DERIVATIVES: MUSEOLOGICAL, MUSEOLOGIST.
) CORRELATED: MUSEAL, MUSEALIA MUSEALITY,
MUSEALISATION, MUSEALIZE, MUSEOGRAPHY,
MUSEUM, MUSEUM OBJECT, NEW MUSEOLOGY,
REALITY.
MUSEUM
n. (from the Greek mouseion, temple of the
muses). Equivalent in French: muse; Spa-
nish: museo; German: Museum; Italian: museo;
Portuguese: museu.
The term museum may mean either
the institution or the establishment
or the place generally designed to
select, study and display the material
and intangible evidence of man and
his environment. The form and the
functions of museums have varied
considerably over the centuries.
Their contents have diversied, as
have their mission, their way of ope-
rating and their management.
1. Most countries have established
denitions of museum through
legislative texts or national organi-
sations. The professional de nition
of museum most widely recognized
today is still that given in 2007 in the
Statutes of the International Council
of Museums (ICOM): A museum
is a non-prot, permanent institu-
tion in the service of society and its
development, open to the public,
which acquires, conserves, resear-
ches, communicates and exhibits
the tangible and intangible heritage
of humanity and its environment for
the purposes of education, study and
enjoyment. This denition replaces
that used as the term of reference
for over 30 years: A museum is a
non-prot making, permanent ins-
titution in the service of the society
and its development, and open to the
public, which acquires, conserves,
researches, communicates, and exhi-
bits, for purposes of study, education
and enjoyment, material evidence of
man and his environment (ICOM
Statutes, 1974).
The difference between these two
denitions, which is at rst sight
barely signicant a reference to
the intangible heritage added and
a few changes in structure never-
theless attests on the one hand to the
preponderance of Anglo-American
logic within ICOM, and on the other
to a diminution of the role given to
research within the institution. Ini-
tially the 1974 denition, written in
French as the lead language, was a
fairly free translation into English to
better reect the Anglo-American
logic about museum functions one
of which is the transmission of heri-
tage. English has become the wor-
king language most widely used in
council meetings, and ICOM, like
most international organisations,
now operates in English too; it seems
that the work to draft a new deni-
tion was based on this English trans-
lation. The structure of the French
denition of 1974 emphasised
research, introduced as the driving
force of the institution: Le muse est
une institution permanente, sans but
lucratif, au service de la socit et de
son dveloppement, ouverte au public
et qui fait des recherches concernant
les tmoins matriels de lhomme
et de son environnement, acquiert
ceux-l, les conserve, les communique
et notamment les expose des ns
dtudes, dducation et de dlecta-
tion. (ICOM Statutes, 1974). The
literal translation, but not the ofcial
one, reads: A museum is a perma-
nent, non-prot institution, in the
service of the society and its deve-
lopment, open to the public, which
does research regarding the material
evidence of man and his environ-
ment, In 2007 the principle of
research (modied in French by the
word tudier - to study) was relega-
ted to a list of the general functions
of museums, as in the 1974 English
version.
2. For many museologists, and in
particular those who claim to adhere
to the concept of museology taught
in the years 1960-1990 by the Czech
school (Brno and the International
Summer School of Museology), the
museum is only one means among
57
 many that attest to a specic rela-
tionship between Man and reality,
a relationship which is dened by
purposeful and systematic collec-
ting and conservation of selected ina-
nimate, material, mobile, and mainly
three-dimensional objects docu-
menting the development of nature
and society (Gregorov, 1980).
Before the museum was de ned as
such in the 18th century, according
to a concept borrowed from Greek
antiquity and its revival during the
western Renaissance, every civilisa-
tion had a number of places, institu-
tions and establishments that were
more or less similar to those that we
group under the same word today.
In this regard the ICOM de nition
is considered to be clearly marked
by its time and its western context,
but also too prescriptive, since its
purpose is essentially corporatist.
A scientic denition of museum mation and experience and fostering
should, in this sense, free itself
from certain elements contributed
by ICOM, such as the not-for-prot
aspect of a museum: a prot-making
museum (such as the Muse Grvin
in Paris) is still a museum, even if it
is not recognised by ICOM. We can
thus more broadly and more objecti-
vely de ne museum as a permanent
museological institution, which pre-
serves collections of physical docu-
ments and generates knowledge
about them (Van Mensch, 1992).
For his part Schrer denes museum
as a place where things and related
values are preserved studied and
communicated, as signs that inter-
58
pret absent facts (Schrer, 2007) or,
in a way that seems tautological at
rst, as the place where the museali-
sation takes place. In an even wider
sense, the museum can be unders-
tood as a place of memory (Nora,
1984; Pinna, 2003), a phenomenon
(Scheiner, 2007), covering institu-
tions, different places or territories,
experiences, and even intangible
spaces.
3. From this perspective which
goes beyond the limited nature of
the traditional museum, it is de ned
as a tool devised by man with the
purpose of archiving, understan-
ding, and transmitting. One could,
like Judith Spielbauer (1987), say
that museums are an instrument
to foster an individuals percep-
tion of the interdependence of the
social, aesthetic and natural worlds
in which he lives by providing infor-
self-knowledge within this wider
context. Museums can also be a
specic function which may or may
not take on the features of an ins-
titution, the objective of which is
to ensure, through a sensory expe-
rience, the storage and transmission
of culture understood as the entire
body of acquisitions that make a
man out of a being who is gene-
tically human (Deloche, 2007).
These denitions cover museums
which are incorrectly referred to as
virtual museums (in particular those
that are on paper, on CD-ROM or
on the Web) as well as more tradi-
tional institutional museums, inclu-
ding even the museums of antiquity,
which were more schools of philoso-
phy than collections in the accepted
sense of the term.
4. This last use of the term
museum brings us to the principles
of the ecomuseum in its original
conception, that is to say a museal
institution which, for the develo-
pment of a community, combines
conservation, display and explana-
tion of the cultural and natural heri-
tage held by this same community;
the ecomuseum represents a living
and working environment on a given
territory, and the research associated
with it. The ecomuseum [] on a
given territory, expresses the rela-
tionship between man and nature
through time and space on this ter-
ritory. It is composed of property of
recognised scientic and cultural
interest which is representative of
the community it serves: non-built
immovable property, natural wild
spaces, natural spaces occupied by
man; built immovable property;
movable property; fungible goods.
It includes an administrative centre,
headquarters of the major structures:
reception, research, conservation,
display, cultural action, administra-
tion, in particular one or more eld
laboratories, conservation bodies,
meeting halls, socio-cultural works-
hops, accommodation etc.; trails and
observation points for exploring the
territory; different architectural,
archaeological and geological ele-
mentsduly indicated and explai-
ned (Rivire, 1978).
5. With the development of com-
puters and the digital world the
concept of cyber museum, often
incorrectly called virtual, gradually
became accepted; a notion generally
dened as a logically related collec-
tion of digital objects composed in a
variety of media which, through its
connectivity and its multi-accessible
nature, lends itself to transcending
traditional methods of communica-
ting and interacting with visitors..;
it has no real place or space; its
objects and the related information
can be disseminated all over the
world (Schweibenz, 1998). This
denition, probably derived from
the relatively recent notion of vir-
tual computer memory, appears to
be something of a misinterpretation.
We must remember that virtual is
not the opposite of real, as we tend
to believe too readily, but rather the
opposite of actual in its original
sense of now existing. An egg is a
virtual chicken; it is programmed
to become a chicken and should
become one if nothing gets in the
way of its development. In this sense
the virtual museum can be seen as all
the museums conceivable, or all the
conceivable solutions applied to the
problems answered by traditional
museums. Thus the virtual museum
can be dened as a concept which
globally identies the problem areas
of the museal eld, that is to say the
effects of the process of decontex-
tualisation/recontextualisation; a
collection of substitutes can be a
virtual museum just as much as a
computerised data base; it is the
59
 museum in its exterior theatre of ope-
rations (Deloche, 2001). The virtual
museum is the package of solutions
that may be applied to museum pro-
blems, and naturally includes the
cyber museum, but is not limited
to it.
60
Z DERIVATIVES: VIRTUAL MUSEUM.
) CORRELATED: CYBER MUSEUM, MUSEAL,
MUSEALIA, MUSEALISATION, MUSEALISE, MUSEOGRAPHER,
MUSEOGRAPHY, MUSEOLOGICAL, MUSEOLOGIST,
MUSEOLOGY, MUSEUMIFICATION (PEJORATIVE), MUSEUM
STUDIES, NEW MUSEOLOGY, EXHIBITION, INSTITUTION,
PRIVATE COLLECTIONS, REALITY.
 O
OBJECT [MUSEUM
OBJECT] OR MUSEALIA
n. (from the Latin objectum, past partici-
ple objectare, to throw against) Equivalent
in French: objet; Spanish: objeto; German:
Objekt, Gegenstand; Italian: oggetto; Portu-
guese: objecto, (Brazilian: objeto)
The term museum object is some-
times replaced by the neologism
musealia, modelled on the Latin neu-
ter noun musealium with musealia in
the plural. The equivalent in French:
musalie (rarely used), musealia; Spa-
nish: musealia; German: Musealie,
Museumsobjekt; Italian: musealia;
Portuguese: musealia.
In the simplest philosophical
sense of the word an object is not in
itself a form of reality, but a product,
a result, or an equivalence. In other
words it means that which is pla-
ced, or thrown forward (ob-jectum,
Gegen-stand) by a subject, who treats
it as different from himself, even if he
considers himself as an object. This
distinction between the subject and
the object developed relatively late
and is a feature of Western culture.
In this way the object is different
from the thing, which is related to
the subject as a continuation or an
implement (for example, a tool as a
continuation of the hand is a thing
and not an object).
A museum object is something
which is musealised; a thing can be
dened as any kind of reality in gene-
ral. The expression museum object
could almost be a pleonasm in so far
as the museum is not only the place
which shelters objects, but also a
place with the principal mission of
transforming things into objects.
1. The object is not in any case
raw, reality or simply a given item
which it would be sufcient to col-
lect, for example, to be part of a
museums collection, as one would
collect seashells on the shore. It is an
ontological status which, in given cir-
cumstances, a particular thing will
assume, on the understanding that
the thing would not be considered
an object in other circumstances.
The difference between the thing
and the object lies in the fact that the
thing has become a concrete part of
life and that the relationship we have
with it is a relationship of affection
or symbiosis. This is revealed by the
animism of societies often reputed
to be primitive: it is a relationship
of usability, as is the case of the tool
adapted to the shape of the hand.
By contrast, an object is always that
which the subject sets down in front
of himself, and separate from him; it
is thus what is facing and different.
61
 In this sense the object is abstract
and dead, closed on itself, as eviden-
ced by that series of objects which
is a collection (Baudrillard, 1968).
This status of the object is conside-
red today to be a purely western pro-
duct (Choay, 1968; Van Lier, 1969;
Adotevi, 1971), in so far as it was the
West which broke with the tribal
way of life and thought about the gap
between subjects and objects for the
rst time (Descartes, Kant, and later
McLuhan, 1969).
2. Through their work of acqui-
sition, research, preservation and
communication, museums can be
presented as one of the major autho-
rities in the production of objects.
In this case, the museum object
musealium or musealia does not
have any intrinsic reality, even if the
museum is not the only instrument
to produce objects. In fact other
approaches are objectivising as is
the case in particular for scienti-
c processes to establish reference
standards (c.f., measurement scales)
which are completely independent of
the subject and which consequently
nd it difcult to treat that which is
living as such (Bergson) because it
tends to turn it into an object, whe-
rein lies the difculty of physiology
compared to anatomy. The museal
object is made to be seen, with its
whole mass of implicit connotations,
because we can display it in order
to stir emotions, to entertain, or to
teach. This action of displaying is so
essential that it is what turns a thing
into an object by creating this dis-
62
tance, whereas the priority in scien-
tic operations is the requirement
to account for things in a universally
intelligible context.
3. Naturalists and ethnologists,
as well as museologists, generally
select things which they already call
objects, according to their poten-
tial as evidence, that is the quality
of information (markers) that they
can provide to reect the ecosys-
tems or cultures the traces of which
they wish to preserve. Musealia
(museum objects) are authentic
movable objects which, as irrefutable
evidence, show the development of
nature and society (Schreiner 1985).
The wealth of information they
provide has led ethnologists such
as Jean Gabus (1965) or Georges
Henri Rivire (1989) to attribute to
them the name witness-object, which
they retain when they are displayed.
Georges Henri Rivire even used the
expression symbol-object to describe
certain witness objects heavy with
content which might claim to sum-
marise a whole culture or period.
The result of systematically making
things into objects is that they can
be studied much better than if they
were still in their original context
(ethnographic eld, private collection
or gallery), but it can also become
fetishist: a ritual mask, a ceremonial
costume, a prayer tool etc. quickly
change their status when they enter
the museum. We are no longer in
the real world, but in the imaginary
world of the museum. For example,
the visitor is not allowed to sit on
a chair in a museum of decorative
arts, which supposes an established
distinction between the functional
chair and the chair-object. Their
function has been removed and they
have been decontextualised, which
means that from now on they will no
longer serve their original purpose
but have entered a symbolic order
which gives them new meaning, lea-
ding Krzysztof Pomian to call such
objects semiophores (carriers of
signicance) and to attribute a new
value to them which is rst of all
purely a museal value but which can
become an economic value. They
thus become sacred (consecrated)
evidence of culture.
4. Exhibitions reect these choi-
ces. For semiologists like Jean Daval-
lon Musealia can be considered less
as things (from the point of view of
their physical reality) than as language
beings (they are dened, recognized
as worthy of being safeguarded and
displayed) and as supports of social
practices (they are collected, cata-
logued, displayed etc.) (Davallon,
1992). Objects can thus be used
as signs, just like words in speech,
when they are used in an exhibition.
But objects are not just signs, since
by their presence alone they can be
directly perceived by our senses.
For this reason the term real thing
is often used to indicate a museum
object exhibited because of its power
of authentic presence, that is The
real things of the museum language
are those things which we present as
what they are, not as models or ima-
ges or representations of something
else. (Cameron, 1968). For various
reasons (sentimental, aesthetic, etc.)
we have an intuitive relationship with
that which is displayed. The noun
exhibit refers to a real thing which is
displayed, but also to anything dis-
playable (a sound, photographic or
lm document, a hologram, a repro-
duction, a model, an installation or
a conceptual model) (see Exhibition).
5. A certain tension exists between
the real thing and its substitute.
Regarding this we must note that for
some people the semiophore object
is only a carrier of meaning when
it is presented for itself, and not
through a substitute. Wide as it may
seem, this purely reist concept does
not take account of either the ori-
gins of museums in the Renaissance
(see Museum) or the development
and diversity reached by museology
during the 19th century. Nor does
it allow us to take into account the
work of a number of museums whose
activities are essentially on other
support systems such as the inter-
net or duplicated media, or more
generally all the museums made
of substitutes such as museums of
casts (gypsotheques), collections of
models, collections of wax repro-
ductions (ceratheques), or science
centres which display mostly models.
Since these objects were considered
as elements of a language, they can
be used to create lecture exhibitions,
but they are not always adequate to
sustain the entire lecture. We must
therefore envisage other elements
63
 of a language of substitution. When
the exhibit replaces a real thing or
authentic object, through its func-
tion or nature, the replacement is
called a substitute. It may be a pho-
tograph, a drawing or a model of
the real thing. The substitute would
thus be said to be in conict with the
authentic object, even though it is
not exactly the same as a copy of the
original (such as the casts of a sculp-
ture or copy of a painting), in so far
as substitutes can be created directly
from an idea or a process and not just
by producing a perfect copy. Accor-
ding to the form of the original and
the use that should be made of it,
the substitute can be two or three-
dimensional. The idea of authenti-
city, particularly important in ne
arts museums (masterpieces, copies
and fakes), inuences the majority
of the questions attached to the sta-
tus and value of museum objects.
We must nonetheless note that there
are museums which have collections
made solely of substitutes, and that,
generally speaking, the policy of
substitutes (copies, plaster casts or
wax, models or digital images) opens
the eld of museum operations very
wide and leads us to question all the
present values of the museum from
64
the point of view of museal ethics.
Moreover, from the wider perspec-
tive mentioned above, any object dis-
played in a museum context must be
considered as a substitute for the rea-
lity it represents because as a musea-
lised thing, the museum object is a
substitute for this thing (Deloche,
2001).
6. In the museological context,
especially in the elds of archaeology
and ethnology, specialists are accus-
tomed to invest the object with the
meaning they have developed from
their own research. But this raises
several problems. First of all, the
objects change their meaning in their
original environment at the whim of
each generation. Next, each visitor is
free to interpret them according to
his or her own culture. The result is
the relativism summarised by Jacques
Hainard in 1984 in a sentence which
has become famous: The object
is not the truth of anything. Firstly
polyfunctional, then polysemic, it
takes on meaning only when placed
in context. (Hainard, 1984)
) CORRELATED: ARTEFACT, AUTHENTICITY,
COLLECTION, COPY, EXHIBIT, FETISH-OBJECT, REAL THING,
REPLICA, REPRODUCTION, SPECIMEN, SUBSTITUTE, THING,
TRANSITORY OBJECT, WITNESS-OBJECT, WORK OF ART.
 P
PRESERVATION
n Equivalent French: prservation; Spanish:
preservacin; German: Bewahrung, Erhal-
tung; Italian: preservazione; Portuguese:
preservao.
To preserve means to protect a thing
or a group of things from different
hazards such as destruction, deterio-
ration, separation or even theft; this
protection is ensured by gathering
the collection in one place, inventori-
sing it, sheltering it, making it secure
and repairing it.
In museology, preservation covers
all the operations involved when an
object enters a museum, that is to
say all the operations of acquisition,
entering in the inventory, recording
in the catalogue, placing in storage,
conservation, and if necessary resto-
ration. The preservation of heritage
generally leads to a policy which
starts with the establishment of a pro-
cedure and criteria for acquisition of
the material and intangible heritage
of humanity and its environment,
and continues with the management
of those things which have become
museum objects, and nally with
their conservation. In this sense the
concept of preservation represents
that which is fundamentally at stake
in museums, because the building up
of collections structures the mission
of museums and their development.
Preservation is one axis of museal
action, the other being transmission
to the public.
1. The acquisition policy is, in most
cases, a fundamental part of the way
any museum operates. Acquisition,
within the museum, brings together
all the means by which a museum
takes possession of the material and
intangible heritage of humanity:
collecting, archaeological digs, gifts
and legacy, exchange, purchase, and
sometimes methods reminiscent of
pillage and abduction (combated by
ICOM and UNESCO Recommen-
dation of 1956 and Convention of
1970). The management of collections
and the overseeing of collections com-
prise all the operations connected
with the administrative handling of
museum objects, that is to say their
recording in the museum catalogue or
registration in the museum inventory
in order to certify their museal sta-
tus which, in some countries, gives
them a specic legal status, since the
items entered in the inventory, espe-
cially in publicly owned museums,
are inalienable and imprescriptible.
In some countries such as the United
States, museums may exceptionally
deaccession objects by transfer to
65
 another museal institution, destruc-
tion or sale. Storage and classication
are also part of collection manage-
ment, along with the supervision of
all movements of objects within and
outside the museum. Finally, the
objective of conservation is to use all
the means necessary to guarantee
the condition of an object against
any kind of alteration in order to
bequeath it to future generations.
In the broadest sense these actions
include overall security (protection
against theft and vandalism, re and
oods, earthquakes or riots), general
measures known as preventive conser-
vation, or all measures and actions
aimed at avoiding and minimizing
future deterioration or loss. They are
carried out within the context or on
the surroundings of an item, but more
often a group of items, whatever their
age and condition. These measures
and actions are indirect they do
not interfere with the materials and
structures of the items. They do not
modify their appearance (ICOM-
CC, 2008). Additionally, remedial
conservation is all actions directly
applied to an item or a group of items
aimed at arresting current damaging
processes or reinforcing their struc-
ture. These actions are only carried
out when the items are in such a
fragile condition or deteriorating at
such a rate that they could be lost in
a relatively short time. These actions
sometimes modify the appearance of
the items (ICOM-CC, 2008). Res-
toration covers all actions directly
applied to a single and stable item
66
aimed at facilitating its apprecia-
tion, understanding and use. These
actions are only carried out when the
item has lost part of its signicance
or function through past alteration
or deterioration. They are based on
respect for the original material.
Most often such actions modify the
appearance of the item (ICOM-CC,
2008). To preserve the integrity of
the items as far as possible, restorers
choose interventions which are rever-
sible and can be easily identied.
2. In practice, the concept of
conservation is often preferred to
that of preservation. For many
museum professionals, conservation,
which addresses both the action
and the intention to protect cultu-
ral property, whether material or
intangible, constitutes a museums
core mission. This explains the use
in French of the word conservateurs
(in English curators, in the UK kee-
pers) which appeared at the time of
the French Revolution. For a long
time (throughout the 19th century at
least) this word seems to have best
described the function of a museum.
Moreover the current denition of
museum by ICOM (2007) does not
use the term preservation to cover
the concepts of acquisition and
conservation. From this perspective,
the notion of conservation should
probably be envisaged in a much
wider sense, to include questions of
inventories and storage. Nonetheless,
this concept collides with a different
reality, which is that conservation
(for example, in the ICOM Conser-
vation Committee) is much more
clearly connected with the work of
conservation and restoration, as des-
cribed above, than with the work of
management or overseeing of the
collections. New professional elds
have evolved, in particular collection
archivists and registrars. The notion
of preservation takes account of all
these activities.
3. The concept of preservation,
in addition, tends to objectivise
the inevitable tensions which exist
between each of these functions (not
to mention the tensions between
preservation and communication or
research), which have often been the
target of much criticism: The idea
of conservation of the heritage takes
us back to the anal drives of all capi-
talist societies (Baudrillard, 1968;
Deloche, 1985, 1989). A number of
acquisition policies, for example,
include deaccession policies at the
same time (Neves, 2005). The ques-
tion of the restorers choices and,
generally speaking, the choices to
be made with regard to conservation
operations (what to keep and what to
discard?) are, along with deaccession,
some of the most controversial issues
in museum management. Finally,
museums are increasingly acquiring
and preserving intangible heritage,
which presents new problems and
forces them to nd conservation
techniques which can be adapted for
these new types of heritage.
) CORRELATED: ACQUISITION, DOCUMENT, ITEMS,
MONUMENT, GOODS, PROPERTY, SEMIOPHORE, THINGS,
RELIC (HOLY), WORK; HERITAGE, INTANGIBLE, MATERIAL;
REALITY; COMMUNITY; PREVENTIVE CONSERVATION,
REMEDIAL CONSERVATION, SAFEGUARD; COLLECTION
MANAGEMENT, COLLECTION OVERSIGHT, COLLECTION
MANAGER, CURATOR, CONSERVATOR, INVENTORY,
RESTORER; DEACCESSION, RESTITUTION.
PROFESSION
n. Equivalent in French: profession; Spanish:
profesin; German: Beruf; Italian: profes-
sione; Portuguese: profisso.
Profession is dened rst of all in a
socially dened setting, and not by
default. Profession does not consti-
tute a theoretical eld: a museologist
can call himself an art historian or a
biologist by profession, but he can
also be considered and socially
accepted as a professional museolo-
gist. For a profession to exist, moreo-
ver, it must dene itself as such, and
also be recognised as such by others,
which is not always the case in the
museum world. There is not one
profession, but several museal pro-
fessions (Dub, 1994), that is to say
a range of activities attached to the
museum, paid or unpaid, by which
one can identify a person (in particu-
lar for his civil status) and place him
in a social category.
If we refer to the concept of museo-
logy as presented here, most museum
employees are far from having recei-
ved the professional training that
their title would imply, and very few
can claim to be museologists simply
because they work in a museum.
There are, however, many positions
which require a specic background.
ICTOP (The ICOM International
67
 Committee for the Training of Per-
sonnel) has listed twenty of them
(Ruge, 2008).
1. Many employees, often the
majority of people working in the
institution, follow a career path
which has only a relatively super-
cial relationship with the very
principle of the museum whereas
to the wider public, they personify
museums. This is the case with
security ofcers or guards, the staff
responsible for the surveillance of
exhibition areas in the museum,
who are the main contacts with the
public, like the receptionists. The
specicity of museum surveillance
(precise measures for security and for
evacuating the public and the collec-
tions etc.) has gradually throughout
the 19th century imposed specic
recruitment categories, in particular
that of a body which is separate from
the rest of the administrative staff.
At the same time it was the gure of
the curator who appeared as the rst
specically museal profession. For a
long time the curator was in charge
of all tasks directly relating to the
objects in the collection, that is their
preservation, research and commu-
nication (PRC model, Reinwardt
Academie). The curators training is
rstly associated with the study of
the collections (art history, natural
sciences, ethnology etc.) even if, for
several years now, it has been backed
up by a more museological training
such as that given by a number of
universities. Many curators who have
specialised in the study of the collec-
tions which remains uncontested as
68
their main eld of activity - cannot
call themselves either museologists,
or museographers (museum practi-
tioners), even if in practice some of
them easily combine these different
aspects of museal work. In France,
unlike other European countries, the
body of curators is generally recrui-
ted by competition and benets from
a specic training school (Institut
national du Patrimoine/the National
Heritage Institute).
2. The term museologist can be
applied to researchers studying the
specic relationship between man
and reality, characterised as the
documentation of the real by direct
sensory perception. Their eld of
activity essentially concerns theory
and critical thinking in the museal
eld, so they may work elsewhere
than in a museum, for example in
a university or in other research
centres. The term is also applied by
extension to any person working for
a museum and holding the function
of project leader or exhibition pro-
grammer. So museologists differ
from curators, and also from museo-
graphers, who are responsible for the
design and general organisation of
the museum and its security, conser-
vation and restoration facilities along
with the exhibition galleries, whether
permanent or temporary. Museogra-
phers, with their specic technical
skills, have an expert vision of all the
ways in which a museum operates
preservation, research and commu-
nication and by drawing up the
appropriate specications they can
manage the information connected
with the overall work of the museum,
from preventive conservation to the
information disseminated to diffe-
rent publics. The museographer dif-
fers from the exhibit designer; a term
proposed to indicate the person with
all the skills required to create exhi-
bitions, whether these are situated in
a museum or in a non-museal setting,
and from the exhibition designer in
that the latter, who uses techniques to
set the scene for the exhibition, may
also nd himself skilled at setting up
an exhibition (see Museography). The
professions of exhibit designer and
exhibition designer have long been
related to that of decorator, which
refers to decoration of the spaces.
But the work of interior decoration
in functional areas pertaining to the
normal activities of interior decora-
tion differs from the tasks that are
required for exhibitions, which are in
the eld of exhibit design. In exhibi-
tions, their work tends more towards
tting out the space using exhibits as
elements of decoration, rather than
starting from the exhibits to be dis-
played and given meaning within
the space. Many exhibit designers
or exhibition designers call themsel-
ves rst of all architects of interior
design, which does not mean that any
architect of interior design can claim
the status of exhibit designer or exhi-
bition designer, or of museographer.
In this context the exhibition and
display curator (a role often played by
the curator, but sometimes by a per-
son from outside the museum) takes
on its full meaning, since he or she
produces the scientic project for the
exhibition and coordinates the entire
project.
3. Assisted by the development of
the museal eld, a number of pro-
fessions have gradually emerged and
to become independent, and also to
conrm their importance and their
will to be a part of the museums
destinies. This phenomenon can
essentially be observed in the elds
of preservation and communication.
In preservation, it was rst of all the
conservator, as a professional with
scientic competences and above
all the techniques required for the
physical treatment of the collection
objects (restoration, preventive and
remedial conservation), who requi-
red highly specialised training (by
types of material and techniques),
competences which the curator does
not have. Similarly the tasks imposed
by the inventory, relating to manage-
ment of the reserves, and also to the
moving of items, favoured the rela-
tively recent creation of the post of
registrar, who is responsible for the
movement of objects, insurance mat-
ters, management of the reserves and
sometimes also the preparation and
mounting of an exhibition (at which
point the registrar becomes the exhi-
bition curator).
4. Regarding communication, the
staff attached to the educational
department, along with all the staff
who work in public relations, have
beneted from the emergence of
a number of specic professions.
Undoubtedly one of the oldest of
these is that of guide-interpreter,
69
 guide-lecturer or lecturer, who
accompanies visitors (most often in
groups) through the exhibition galle-
ries, giving them information about
the exhibition and the objects on dis-
play, essentially following the princi-
ple of guided visits. This rst type of
accompaniment has been joined by
the function of animator, the person
in charge of workshops or other expe-
riences coming under the museums
communication methods, and then
that of cultural projects coordinator
who is the intermediary between the
collections and the public and whose
aim is more to interpret the collec-
tions and to encourage the public to
take interest in them than to systema-
tically teach the public according to a
pre-established content. Increasingly
the web master plays a fundamental
role in the museums communication
and mediation tasks.
5. Other cross-cutting or ancillary
occupations have been added to these
professions. Among these are the
head or project manager (who may be
a scientist, or a museographer) who
is responsible for all the methods for
implementing the museal activities
and who groups around him spe-
cialists in the elds of preservation,
research, and communication in
order to carry out specic projects,
such as a temporary exhibition, a
new gallery, an open reserve, etc.
6. In more general terms it is very
likely that administrators or museum
managers, who already have their own
committee in ICOM, will emphasise
the specic skills of their function by
70
distinguishing it from other organi-
sations, for prot or not. The same
is true for many other administra-
tive tasks such as logistics, security,
information technology, marketing,
and media relations, which are all
growing in importance. Museum
directors (who also have associations,
particularly in the United States)
have proles that cover one or more
of the above prociencies. They are
symbols of authority in the museum,
and their prole (manager or cura-
tor, for example) is often presented
as indicative of the development and
action strategy that the museum will
adopt.
) CORRELATED: ANIMATOR, COMMUNICATOR,
CONSERVATION, CURATOR, CULTURAL PROJECTS
COORDINATOR, EDUCATOR, EVALUATOR, EXHIBIT
PRACTICE, EXHIBIT STUDIES, EXHIBITION DESIGNER,
GUARD, GUIDE, GUIDE-INTERPRETER, INTERIOR DESIGNER,
LECTURER, MANAGEMENT, MEDIATOR, MUSEOGRAPHY,
MUSEOLOGIST, MUSEOLOGY, MUSEUM PRACTICE,
MUSEUM STUDIES, PROJECT MANAGER, RESEARCHER,
RESTORER, SECURITY OFFICER, STAGE DESIGNER,
TECHNICIAN, VOLUNTEER.
PUBLIC
n., adj. (Latin publicus, populus: people or
population) Equivalent in French: public,
audience; Spanish: pblico; German:
Publikum Besucher; Italian: pubblico; Portu-
guese: pblico.
The term has two accepted mea-
nings, according to whether it is used
as an adjective or a noun.
1. The adjective public as in
public museum explains the legal
relationship between the museum
and the people of the area in which
it is located. The public museum is
essentially the property of the people;
it is nanced and administered by the
people through its representatives
and by delegation, through its mana-
gement. This system is most strongly
present in Latin countries: the public
museum is essentially nanced by
taxes, and its collections are part
of the logic of public ownership (in
principle they cannot rightfully be
removed or deaccessioned, nor can
their status be changed unless a strict
procedure is followed). The working
rules are generally those of public
services, especially the principle of
continuity (the service is required to
operate continuously and regularly,
with no interruptions other than
those provided for in the regula-
tions), the principle of mutability (the
service must adapt to changes in the
needs of the general public interest,
and there should be no legal obstacle
to changes to be made to this end),
the principle of equality (to insure
that each citizen is treated equally).
Finally the principle of transparency
(communication of documents about
the service to anyone who requests
them, and the reasons for certain
decisions) signies that the museal
establishment is open to all and
belongs to all; it is at the service of
society and its development.
In Anglo-American law the pre-
vailing notion is less that of public
service than that of public trust,
principles which demand that the
trustees have a strict commitment to
the museum, generally organised as a
private enterprise with the status of
a non-prot organisation, and that
the activities of the board of trustees
are aimed at a certain public. This
museums main point of reference,
particularly in the United States, is
more an idea of community than that
of public, the term community often
being taken in a very wide sense (see
Society).
This principle of public interest
causes museums worldwide to see
their activities carried out, if not
under the aegis of public authori-
ties, then at least with reference to
them, and most often to be partly
run by these authorities, which in
turn obliges museums to respect
a number of rules which inuence
their administration and a number
of ethical principles. In this context
the question of the private museum
and that of the museum managed as
a commercial enterprise allows the
assumption that the different princi-
ples connected with state ownership
and the nature of public authori-
ties mentioned above would not be
encountered. It is from this pers-
pective that the ICOM denition of
museum presupposes that it is a non-
prot organisation, and that many of
the articles of its code of ethics have
been drafted according to its public
nature.
2. As a noun the word public refers
to the museum users (the museum
public), but also, by extension from
its actual user public, to the whole
of the population addressed by the
71
 establishment. The notion of public
is central to almost all of the current
denitions of museum: institution
at the service of society and its
development, open to the public
(ICOM, 2007). It is also a collec-
tion the conservation and dis-
play of which are of public interest
and intended for public knowledge,
education and enjoyment (Law on
the museums of France, 2002), or
again an institution which owns
and uses material objects, preserves
them and exhibits them to the public
according to regular opening hours
(American Association of Museums,
Accreditation Program, 1973); the
denition published in 1998 by the
Museums Association (UK) replaced
the adjective public with the noun
people.
The very notion of public closely
associates the museum activities with
its users, even those who are intended
to benet from it but do not use its ser-
vices. By users we mean of course the
visitors the public at large about
whom we think rst of all, forgetting
that they have not always played the
central role that the museum reco-
gnises today, because there are many
specic publics. Museums have ope-
ned up to everyone only gradually,
being rst of all a place for artistic
training and for the territory of the
learned and scholarly. This opening,
which has led museum staff to take
an increasing interest in all its visi-
tors and also in the population that
does not visit museums, has fostered
the growth of ways of interpreting
72
the museum to all the users, as we
can see by the new words used over
time: people, public at large, non-
public, distant public, disabled or
frail; users, visitors, observers, spec-
tators, consumers, audience, etc. The
development of the professional eld
of exhibition critics, many of whom
present themselves as public advo-
cates or for the voice of the public,
is evidence of this current tendency
to reinforce the idea that the public is
at the core of general museum opera-
tions. Essentially since the end of the
1980s we talk of a real turn towards
the public in museal action, to show
the growing importance of museum
visits and take account of the needs
and expectations of visitors (which
corresponds to what we also call
the commercial trend of museums,
even if the two do not necessarily go
together).
3. By extension, in the models of
community museums and ecomu-
seums, the public has been extended
to cover the whole of the population
in the areas in which they are set.
The population is the basis of the
museum and in the case of the eco-
museum, it becomes the main player
and no longer the target of the esta-
blishment (see Society).
Z DERIVATIVES: DISABLED PUBLIC, MINORITY PUBLIC,
NON-PUBLIC, PUBLIC AT LARGE, PUBLIC RELATIONS,
PUBLICITY, TARGET PUBLIC.
) CORRELATED: AUDIENCE, ASSESSMENTS,
COMMUNITY, CUSTOMERS, ECOMUSEUM, EVALUATION,
EVALUATORS, LOYALTY BUILDING, PEOPLE, POPULATION,
PRIVATE, SOCIETY, SPECTATORS, ENQUIRIES, TOURISTS,
USERS, VISITING, VISITORS.
 R
RESEARCH
n. Equivalent in French: recherche; Spanish:
investigacin; German: Forschung; Italian:
ricerca; Portuguese: pesquisa, investigao.
Research consists of exploring pre-
dened elds with the purpose of
advancing the knowledge of these
and the action it is possible to carry
out in these elds. In the museum,
research consists of the intellectual
activities and work aimed at disco-
very, invention, and the advancement
of new knowledge connected with
the museum collections, or the acti-
vities it carries out.
1. Until 2007 ICOM presented
research in the French (and of-
cial) version of the denition of
museum, as the driving force behind
its functioning, the objective of the
museum being to carry out research
on the material evidence of man and
society, which is why the museum
acquires, conserves, and exhibits
this evidence. This formal deni-
tion which presented the museum
as a kind of laboratory (open to the
public) no longer represents museal
reality today, since a large part of
the research such as was carried out
in the last third of the 20th century
has been moved from museums to
laboratories and universities. Now
the museum acquires, conserves,
researches, communicates and exhi-
bits the tangible and intangible heri-
tage of humanity (ICOM, 2007).
This denition, shorter than the
previous one (and with the term fait
des recherches [does research] in
French replaced by tudier [study])
nonetheless remains essential to the
general operations of the museum.
Research is one of the three activi-
ties of the PRC model (Preservation
Research Communication) pro-
posed by the Reinwardt Academie
(Mensch, 1992) to dene the func-
tioning of museums; it appears to be
a fundamental element for thinkers
as different as Zbynek Strnsk or
Georges Henri Rivire, and many
other museologists from central and
eastern Europe, such as Klaus Schrei-
ner. At the Muse national des Arts
et traditions populaires (The Natio-
nal Museum of Folk Arts and Tra-
ditions), and more precisely through
his works on lAubrac, Rivire per-
fectly illustrated the repercussions
of the scientic research programme
for all the functions of a museum, in
particular its acquisition, publication
and exhibition policies.
2. Aided by market mechanisms
which have favoured temporary
exhibitions to the detriment of per-
73
 manent ones, part of the fundamen-
tal research has been replaced by a
more applied research, particularly
in the preparation of temporary
exhibitions. Research within the fra-
mework of the museum or attached
to it can be classied into four cate-
gories (Davallon, 1995), according
to whether it is part of the opera-
tions of the museum (its technology)
or produces knowledge about the
museum.
The rst type of research, cer-
tainly the most developed, is direct
evidence of traditional museal acti-
vity and is based on the museums
collections, relying essentially on
the reference disciplines connec-
ted with the content of the collec-
tions (history of art, history, natural
sciences, etc.). The building of clas-
sication systems, inherent to the
building of a collection and produc-
tive of catalogues, was one of the
foremost research priorities within
the museum, particularly in natural
science museums (this is the essence
of taxonomy), but also in museums
of ethnography, archaeology and of
course ne art.
The second type of research invol-
ves sciences and disciplines which
lie outside the realm of museology
(physics, chemistry, communication
74
sciences, etc.), pursued in order to
develop tools for museum practice
(considered here as museal techni-
ques): material and standards for
conservation, study or restoration,
surveys of the public, management
methods, etc.
The aim of the third type of
research, which can be called
museological (for example, museal
ethics), is to stimulate thought
about the mission and operations of
museums especially through the
work of ICOFOM. The disciplines
involved are essentially philosophy
and history, or museology as dened
by the Brno school.
Finally, the fourth type of research,
which can also be seen as museologi-
cal (understood as all critical thought
connected with the museal) addres-
ses analysis of the institution, in par-
ticular through its communication
and heritage aspects. The sciences
mobilised for building up knowledge
about the museum itself are history,
anthropology, sociology and linguis-
tics, etc.
Z DERIVATIVES: MUSEOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTRE,
RESEARCHER.
) CORRELATED: CURATOR, COMMUNICATION,
MUSEOLOGY, MUSEUM STUDIES, PRESERVATION,
SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME OF THE MUSEUM, STUDY.
 S
SOCIET Y
n. Equivalent in French: socit; Spanish:
sociedad; German: Gesellschaft, Bevlke-
rung; Italian: societ; Portuguese: sociedade.
In its most general sense, society
is the human group understood
as a more or less coherent whole
in which systems of relationships
and exchange are established. The
society addressed by museums can
be dened as a community of indi-
viduals (in a specic place at a speci-
c time) organised around common
political, economic, legal and cultu-
ral institutions, of which the museum
is a part and with which it builds its
activities.
1. Since 1974 the museum has been
viewed by ICOM following the
declaration of Santiago de Chile as
an institution in the service of
society and its development. This
proposal, historically determined by
the birth of the expression deve-
loping country and its identication
during the 1970s as a third group of
countries between western and eas-
tern countries, sees the museum as an
agent for the development of society,
whether this be culture (the use of
the term going so far as to include its
literal meaning at this time of agri-
cultural development) or tourism
and economy, as is the case today. In
this sense society can be understood
as all the inhabitants of one or more
countries, or even the entire world.
This is the case for UNESCO, the
international promoter most com-
mitted to the maintenance and deve-
lopment of cultures and the respect
of cultural diversity, as well as to
the development of educational sys-
tems a category in which museums
willingly take their place.
2. If on rst sight society can be
dened as a community structured
by institutions, the concept of com-
munity itself differs from that of
society, since a community is a group
of people living collectively or for-
ming an association, sharing a num-
ber of things in common (language,
religion, customs) without necessa-
rily gathering around institutional
structures. More generally speaking,
society and community are generally
differentiated by their assumed size:
the term community is generally
used to dene smaller and more
homogeneous groups (the Jewish
community, the gay community, etc.,
in a city or in a country), whereas the
term society is often used in the case
of much larger and necessarily more
75
 heterogeneous groups of people (the
society of this country, bourgeois
society). More precisely, the term
community, regularly used in Anglo-
American countries, does not have
a true equivalent in French since it
represents A collection of consti-
tuents or stakeholders 1) audiences,
2) scholars, 3) other public inter-
preters, e.g. Press, interpretative
artists, 4) program providers arts
groups, etc, 5) repositories, inclu-
ding libraries, preservation agencies,
museums (American Association of
Museums, 2002). The term is transla-
ted in French either by collectivit or
population locale or communaut (in
a restricted sense), or also by milieu
professionel.
3. Two types of museums social
museums and community museums
have been developed in recent deca-
des in order to emphasise the specic
connection that these museums wish
to build with their public. These
museums, traditionally ethnogra-
phic museums, present themselves
as establishments which have strong
ties with their public, who is at the
centre of their work. Although the
nature of their respective objectives
is similar, their management style
differs, as does their relation with
the public. The term social museums
76
includes museums which share the
same objective: to study the evol-
ution of humanity in its social and
historical components, and to trans-
mit the staging posts, the points of
reference, for understanding the
diversity of cultures and societies
(Vaillant, 1993). These objectives
establish the museum as a truly inter-
disciplinary space and can produce
exhibitions addressing subjects as
varied as the BSE crisis, immigra-
tion, ecology etc. The operation of
community museums, which can
be part of the movement of social
museums, is more directly related
to the social, cultural, professional
or geographical group which they
represent and which is meant to sus-
tain them. Although often professio-
nally managed, they may also rely on
local initiative alone and the spirit of
giving. The issues they address touch
directly on the functioning and iden-
tity of this community; this is parti-
cularly the case for neighbourhood
museums and ecomuseums.
Z DERIVATIVES: SOCIAL MUSEUMS, SOCIETY
MUSEUMS.
) CORRELATED: COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY MUSEUM, DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMME, ECOMUSEUM, IDENTITY, LOCAL,
NEIGHBOURHOOD MUSEUM, PUBLIC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADOTEVI S., 1971. Le muse dans
les systmes ducatifs et culturels
contemporains, in Actes de la
neuvime confrence gnrale de
lIcom, Grenoble, p.19-30.
ALBERTA MUSEUMS ASSOCIATION,
2003. Standard Practices Handbook
for Museums, Alberta, Alberta
Museums Association, 2nd ed.
ALEXANDER E. P., 1983. Museum
Masters: their Museums and their
Inuence, Nashville, American
Association for State and Local
History.
ALEXANDER E. P., 1997. The Museum
in America, Innovators and Pio-
neers, Walnut Creek, Altamira
Press.
ALLARD M. et BOUCHER S., 1998.
duquer au muse. Un modle
thorique de pdagogie musale,
Montral, Hurtubise.
ALTSHULER B., 2008. Salon to Bien-
nial Exhibitions That Made Art
History, London, Phaidon.
AMBROSE T., PAINE C., 1993. Museum
Basics, London, Routledge.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS
[EDCOM Committee on Educa-
tion], 2002. Excellence in Practice.
Museum Education Principles and
Standards, Washington, American
Association of Museums. Availa-
ble on the internet: http://www.
edcom.org/Files/Admin/EdCom-
BookletFinalApril805.pdf
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARPIN R. et al., 2000. Notre Patri-
moine, un prsent du pass, Qu-
bec.
BABELON J.-P., CHASTEL A., 1980. La
notion de Patrimoine, La Revue
de lArt.
BARKER E., 1999. Contemporary
Cultures of Display, New Haven,
Yale University Press.
BARROSO E. et VAILLANT E. (dir.),
1993. Muses et Socits, actes du
colloque Mulhouse-Ungersheim,
Paris, DMF, Ministre de la
Culture.
BARY M.-O. de, TOBELEM J.-M., 1998.
Manuel de musographie, Biar-
ritz, Sguier Atlantica Option
Culture.
BASSO PERESSUT L., 1999. Muses.
Architectures 1990-2000, Paris/
Milan, Actes Sud/Motta.
BAUDRILLARD J., 1968. Le systme des
objets, Paris, Gallimard.
BAZIN G., 1967. Le temps des muses,
Lige, Desoer.
BENNET T. 1995. The Birth of the
Museum, London, Routledge.
BOISSY DANGLAS F. A., 1794. Quel-
ques ides sur les arts, sur la
ncessit de les encourager, sur les
institutions qui peuvent en assurer
le perfectionnement, 25 pluvise
an II.
BROWN GOODE G., 1896. The prin-
ciples of museum administration,
Report of Proceedings with the
papers read at the sixth annual
general meeting, held in Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, July 23rd-26th, London,
Dulau, p. 69-148.
77
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BUCK R., GILMORE J. A., 1998.
The New Museum Registration
Methods, Washington, American
Association of Museums.
BURCAW G. E., 1997. Introduction to
Museum Work, Walnut Creek/
London, Altamira Press, 3rd ed.
BUREAU CANADIEN DES ARCHIVISTES,
1990. Rgles pour la description des
documents darchives, Ottawa.
CAILLET E., LEHALLE E., 1995.
lapproche du muse, la mdiation
culturelle, Lyon, Presses universi-
taires de Lyon.
CAMERON D., 1968. A viewpoint:
The Museum as a communica-
tion system and implications for
museum education, in Curator, no
11, p. 33-40: 2 vol.
CASSAR M., 1995. Environmental
Management, London, Routledge.
CHOAY F., 1992. Lallgorie du patri-
moine, Paris, Le Seuil.
CHOAY F., 1968. Ralit de lobjet et
ralisme de lart contemporain, DELOCHE B., 2007. Dnition du
in KEPES G. (dir.), Lobjet cr par
lhomme, Bruxelles, La Connais-
sance.
DANA J. C., 1917-1920. New Museum,
Selected Writings by John Cotton
Dana, Washington/Newark, Ame-
rican Association of Museums/
The Newark Museum, 1999.
DAVALLON J., 1992. Le muse est-
il vraiment un mdia, Public et
muses, no 2, p. 99-124.
DAVALLON J., 1995. Muse et muso-
logie. Introduction, in Muses et
78
Recherche, Actes du colloque tenu
Paris, les 29, 30 novembre et 1er
dcembre 1993, Dijon, OCIM.
DAVALLON J., 1999. Lexposition
luvre, Paris, LHarmattan.
DAVALLON J., 2006. Le don du patri-
moine. Une approche communica-
tionnelle de la patrimonialisation,
Paris, Lavoisier.
DAVALLON J. (dir.), 1986. Claquemu-
rer pour ainsi dire tout lunivers: La
mise en exposition, Paris, Centre
Georges Pompidou.
DEAN D., 1994. Museum Exhibition.
Theory and Practice, London,
Routledge.
DEBRAY R., 2000. Introduction la
mdiologie, Paris, Presses universi-
taires de France.
DELOCHE B., 1985. Museologica.
Contradictions et logiques du muse,
Mcon, d. W. et M.N.E.S.
DELOCHE B., 2001. Le muse virtuel,
Paris, Presses universitaires de
France.
muse, in MAIRESSE F. et DESVAL-
LES A., Vers une rednition du
muse?, Paris, LHarmattan.
DOTTE J.-L., 1986. Suspendre
Oublier, 50, Rue de Varenne, no 2,
p. 29-36.
DESVALLES A., 1995. mergence
et cheminement du mot patri-
moine , Muses et collections
publiques de France, no 208, sep-
tembre, p. 6-29.
DESVALLES A., 1998. Cent quarante
termes musologiques ou petit

glossaire de lexposition, in DE
BARY M.-O., TOBELEM J.-M., Manuel
de musographie, Paris, Sguier
Option culture, p. 205-251.
DESVALLES A., 1992 et 1994. Vagues.
Une anthologie de la nouvelle
musologie, Mcon, d. W. et
M.N.E.S., 2 vol.
DUB P., 1994. Dynamique de la for-
mation en musologie lchelle
internationale, Muses, vol. 16,
no 1, p. 30-32.
FALK J. H., DIERKING L. D., 1992. The
Museum Experience, Washington,
Whalesback Books.
FALK J.H., DIERKING L.D., 2000.
Learning from Museums, New
York, Altamira Press.
FERNNDEZ L. A., 1999. Introduccion
a la nueva museologa, Madrid,
Alianza Editorial.
FERNNDEZ L. A., 1999. Museologa e
Museografa, Barcelona, Ediciones
del Serbal.
FINDLEN P., 1989. The Museum: its
classical etymology and Renais-
sance genealogy, Journal of the
History of Collections, vol. 1, n1,
p.59-78.
GABUS, J., 1965. Principes esthti-
ques et prparation des expositions
pdagogiques, Museum, XVIII,
no 1, p. 51-59 et no 2, p. 65-97.
GALARD J. (dir.), 2000. Le regard
instruit, action ducative et action
culturelle dans les muses, Actes
du colloque organis au muse du
Louvre le 16 avril 1999, Paris, La
Documentation franaise.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GOB A., DROUGUET N., 2003. La
musologie. Histoire, dvelop-
pements, enjeux actuels, Paris,
Armand Colin.
GREGOROV A., 1980. La musologie
science ou seulement travail
pratique du muse, MuWoP-
DoTraM, n1, p. 19-21.
HAINARD J., 1984. La revanche du
conservateur, in HAINARD J.,
KAEHR R. (dir.), Objets prtex-
tes, objets manipuls, Neuchtel,
Muse dethnographie.
HEGEL G. W. F., 1807. Phnomnolo-
gie de lesprit, tr. fr. BOURGEOIS B.,
Paris, J. Vrin, 2006.
HOOPER-GREENHILL E. (Ed.), 1994.
The Educational Role of the
Museum, London, Routledge.
HOOPER-GREENHILL E. (Ed.), 1995.
Museum, Media, Message. London,
Routledge.
ICOM, 2006. Code of Ethics for
Museums. Paris. Available on the
internet: http://icom. museum/
code2006_eng.pdf
ICOM-CC, 2008. Resolution submit-
ted to the ICOM-CC membership.
Terminology to characterise the
conservation of tangible cultural
heritage. On the occasion of the 15th
Triennial Conference, New Delhi
2226 September, 2008. Available
on the internet: ICOM-CC Reso-
lution on Terminology English.pdf
JANES R. R., 1995. Museums and the
Paradox of Change. A Case Study in
Urgent Adaptation, Calgary, Glen-
bow Museum.
79
BIBLIOGRAPHY
KARP I. et al. (Ed.), 2006. Museum
Frictions, Durham, Duke Univer-
sity.
KLSER B., HEGEWISCH K. (dir.), 1998.
Lart de lexposition, Paris, ditions
du Regard.
KNELL S., 2004. The Museum and
the Future of Collecting, London,
Ashgate, 2nd ed.
LASSWELL H., 1948. The Structure
and Function of Communication
in Society, in BRYSON L. (Ed.),
The Communication of Ideas, Har-
per and Row.
LEIBNIZ G. W., 1690. Smtliche Schrif-
ten und Briefe. Erste Reihe. Allge-
meiner politischer und historischer
Briefwechsel, vol. 5 [1687-1690].
Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1954.
LENIAUD J. M., 2002. Les archipels du
pass, le patrimoine et son histoire,
Paris, Fayard.
LUGLI A., 1998. Naturalia et Mira-
bilia, les cabinets de curiosit en
Europe, Paris, Adam Biro.
MALINOWSKI, B., 1944. A Scientic
Theory of Culture, Chapel Hill,
University of North Carolina Press
MALRAUX A., 1947. Le muse imagi-
naire, Paris, Gallimard.
MALRAUX A., 1951. Les voix du silence
Le muse imaginaire, Paris, NRF.
MAROVIC I., 1998. Introduction
to Museology the European
Approach, Munich, Verlag Chris-
tian Mller-Straten.
MAROEVIC I., 2007. Vers la nouvelle
dnition du muse, in MAIRES-
SE F., DESVALLES A. (dir.), Vers
une rednition du muse ?, Paris,
LHarmattan, p.137146.
80
MAUSS M., 1923. Essai sur le don, in
Sociologie et anthropologie, Paris,
PUF, 1950, p. 143-279.
MCLUHAN M., PARKER H., BARZUN J.,
1969. Le muse non linaire. Explo-
ration des mthodes, moyens et
valeurs de la communication avec
le public par le muse, tr. fr. par
B. Deloche et F. Mairesse avec la
collab. de S. Nash, Lyon, Alas,
2008.
VAN MENSCH P., 1992. Towards a
Methodology of Museology, Uni-
versity of Zagreb, Faculty of Phi-
losophy, Doctoral thesis.
MIRONER L., 2001. Cent muses la
rencontre du public, Paris, France
dition.
MOORE K. (dir.), 1999. Management
in Museums, London, Athlone
Press.
NEICKEL C. F., 1727. Museographia
oder Anleitung zum rechten Begriff
und ntzlicher Anlegung der Museo-
rum, oder Raritten-Kammern,
Leipzig.
NEVES C., 2005. Concern at the Core.
Managing Smithsonian Collec-
tions, Washington, Smithsonian
Institution, April. Available on
the internet: http://www.si.edu/
opanda/studies_of_resources.html
NORA P. (dir.), 1984-1987. Les lieux
de mmoire. La Rpublique, la
Nation, les France, Paris, Galli-
mard, 8 vol.
OBSERVATOIRE DE LA CULTURE ET DES
COMMUNICATIONS DU QUBEC,
2004. Systme de classication des
activits de la culture et des com-
munications du Qubec. Available

on Internet: http://www.stat.gouv.
qc.ca/observatoire/scaccq/princi-
pale.htm
PERRET A., 1931. Architecture
dabord !, in WILDENSTEIN G.,
Muses. Les Cahiers de la Rpubli-
que des Lettres, des Sciences et des
Arts, vol. XIII, Paris, p. 97.
PINNA G., 2003. [Proposition de
dnition du muse participa-
tion la discussion sur le forum
ICOM-L], ICOM-L, 3 dcembre.
Available on the internet: http://
home.ease.lsof t.com /scr ipts/
wa.exe?A1=ind0312&L=icom-l
PITMAN B. (dir.), 1999. Presence of
Mind. Museums and the Spirit of
Learning, Washington, American
Association of Museums.
POMIAN K., 1987. Collectionneurs,
amateurs et curieux: Paris, Venise,
XVIe-XVIIIe sicles, Paris, Gallimard.
POMMIER E. (dir.), 1995. Les muses
en Europe la veille de louverture
du Louvre, Actes du colloque, 3-5
juin 1993, Paris, Klincksieck.
POULOT D., 1997. Muse, nation,
patrimoine, Paris, Gallimard.
POULOT D., 2005. Une histoire des
muses de France, Paris, La Dcou-
verte.
POULOT D., 2006. Une histoire du
patrimoine en Occident, Paris,
PUF.
PREZIOSI D., 2003 FARAGO C., Gras-
ping the World, the Idea of the
Museum, London, Ashgate.
PUTHOD de MAISONROUGE, 1791. Les
Monuments ou le plerinage histo-
rique, n1, Paris, p. 2-17.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
QUATREMRE DE QUINCY A., 1796.
Lettres Miranda sur le dplace-
ment des monuments de lart en Ita-
lie (1796), Paris, Macula, 1989.
R ASSE P., 1999. Les muses la
lumire de lespace public, Paris,
LHarmattan.
R AU L., 1908. Lorganisation des
muses, Revue de synthse histori-
que, t. 17, p. 146-170 et 273-291.
R ENAN E., 1882. Quest-ce quune
nation ?, Confrence en Sorbonne,
le 11 mars.
R ICO J. C., 2006. Manual prctico de
museologa, museografa y tcnicas
expositivas, Madrid, Silex.
R IEGL A., 1903. Der Moderne Denk-
malkultus, tr. fr. Le culte moderne
des monuments, Paris, Seuil, 1984.
R IVIRE, G.H., 1978. Dnition
de lcomuse, cit dans Lco-
muse, un modle volutif, in
DESVALLES A., 1992, Vagues. Une
anthologie de la nouvelle musolo-
gie, Mcon, d. W. et M.N.E.S.,
vol. 1, p. 440-445.
R IVIRE, G.H., 1981. Musologie,
repris dans R IVIRE, G.H. et alii.,
1989, La musologie selon Georges
Henri Rivire, Paris, Dunod.
R IVIRE G. H. et alii., 1989. La muso-
logie selon Georges Henri Rivire,
Paris, Dunod.
RUGE A. (dir.), 2008. Rfrentiel
europen des professions musales,
ICTOP. Available on the inter-
net.
SCHRER M. R., 2003. Die Ausstel-
lung Theorie und Exempel,
Mnchen, Mller-Straten.
81
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SCHEINER T., 2007. Muse et muso-
logie. Dnitions en cours, in
MAIRESSE F. et DESVALLES A., Vers
une rednition du muse ?, Paris,
LHarmattan, p. 147-165.
SCHREINER K., 1985. Authentic
objects and auxiliary materials in
museums, ICOFOM Study Series,
no 8, p. 63-68.
SCHULZ E., 1990. Notes on the his-
tory of collecting and of museums,
Journal of the History of Collec-
tions, vol. 2, n 2, p. 205-218.
SCHWEIBENZ W., 2004. Le muse
virtuel, ICOM News, Vol. 57
[premire dnition en 1998], no 3,
p. 3.
SHAPIRO R. 2004. Quest-ce que lar-
tication ? , in Lindividu social,
XVIIe Congrs de lAISLF, Comit
de recherche 18, Sociologie de lart,
Tours, juillet 2004. Available on
the internet: http://halshs.archives-
ouvertes.fr/docs/00/06/71/36/
PDF/ArticHAL.pdf
SCHOUTEN F., 1987. Lducation
dans les muses: un d perma-
nent, Museum, n 156, p. 241 sq.
SMITH L. (dir.), 2006. Cultural Heri-
tage. Critical Concepts in Media and
Cultural Studies, London, Rout-
ledge, 4 vol.
SPIELBAUER J., 1987. Museums and
Museology: a Means to Active Inte-
grative Preservation, ICOFOM
Study Series, no 12, p. 271-277.
STRNSK Z. Z., 1980. Museology as
a Science (a thesis), Museologia,
15, XI, p. 33-40.
82
STRNSK Z. Z., 1987. La musologie
est-elle une consquence de lexis-
tence des muses ou les prcde-
t-elle et dtermine [-t-elle] leur
avenir ? , ICOFOM Study Series,
n 12, p. 295.
STRNSK Z. Z., 1995. Musologie.
Introduction aux tudes, Brno, Uni-
versit Masaryk.
TOBELEM J.-M. (dir.), 1996. Muses.
Grer autrement. Un regard inter-
national, Paris, Ministre de la
Culture et La Documentation
franaise.
TOBELEM J.-M., 2005. Le nouvel ge
des muses, Paris, Armand Colin.
TORAILLE R., 1985. LAnimation pda-
gogique aujourdhui, Paris, ESF.
UNESCO, 1972. Convention concerning
the Protection of the World Cultu-
ral and Natural Heritage, Paris,
16 November. Available on the
internet: whc.unesco.org/archive/
convention-en.pdf
UNESCO, 1993. Establishment of a sys-
tem of living cultural properties
(living human treasures) at UNESCO,
adopted by the Executive Board
of UNESCO at its 142nd session
(Paris, 10 dcembre 1993). Availa-
ble on the internet: http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0009/000958/
095831eo.pdf
UNESCO, 2003. Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangi-
ble Cultural Heritage. Paris, 17
October 2003. Available on the
internet: http://unesdoc.unesco.
org/images/0013/001325/132540e.
pdf

VAN LIER H., 1969. Objet et esth-
tique, Communications, n 13,
p. 92-95.
VERGO P. (dir.), 1989. The New Museo-
logy, London, Reaktion books.
VICQ dAZYR, F., POIRIER, DOM G.,
1794. Instruction sur la manire
dinventorier et de conserver, dans
toute ltendue de la Rpublique,
tous les objets qui peuvent servir
aux arts, aux sciences et lensei-
gnement. Rd. in DELOCHE B.,
LENIAUD J.-M., 1989, La Culture
des sans-culotte, Paris/Montpellier,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
d. de Paris/Presses du Langue-
doc, p.175-242, p. 177 et 236.
WAIDACHER F., 1996. Handbuch der
Allgemeinen Museologie, Wien,
Bhlau Verlag, 2e d.
WEIL S., 2002. Making Museums Mat-
ter, Washington, Smithsonian.
WIENER N., 1948. Cybernetics: Or
Control and Communication in the
Animal and the Machine, Paris/
Cambridge, Librairie Hermann &
Cie/MIT Press.
ZUBIAUR CARREO F. J., 2004. Curso
de museologa, Gijn, Trea.
83
Concepts cls
de musologie
Concepts cls
de musologie
Sous la direction dAndr Desvalles
et Franois Mairesse
 Avec le soutien du Muse Royal de Mariemont
www.musee-mariemont.be

Et le soutien du Comit international de lICOM pour la musologie

Photographies de couverture :

2009 Muse du Louvre / Angle Dequier

National Heritage Board, Singapore
Auckland Museum
Ningbo Museum

Armand Colin, 2010

ISBN : 978-2-200-25396-7
 COMIT DE RDACTION
Franois Mairesse, Andr Desvalles, Bernard Deloche, Serge
Chaumier, Martin R. Schrer, Raymond Montpetit, Yves Bergeron,
Nomie Drouguet, Jean Davallon

Avec la collaboration de :

Philippe Dub, Nicole Gesch-Koning, Andr Gob, Bruno Brulon

Soares, Wan Chen Chang, Marilia Xavier Cury, Blondine Desbiolles,
Jan Dolak, Jennifer Harris, Francisca Hernandez Hernandez, Diana
Lima, Pedro Mendes, Lynn Maranda, Suzanne Nash, Monica Risnicoff
de Gorgas, Anita Shah, Graciela Weisinger, Anna Leshchenko (qui
ont particip activement au Symposium de lICOFOM consacr ce
sujet, en 2009, ou ont relu ce document).

5
 AV A N T - P R O P O S

Le dveloppement de standards professionnels constitue lun des

objectifs principaux de lICOM, particulirement pour ce qui concerne
lavancement des connaissances, leur communication et leur partage
au sein de lensemble de la communaut musale, mais aussi tous
ceux qui veulent dvelopper des politiques en relation avec le travail
de cette dernire, aux responsables de leurs aspects lgaux et sociaux
ainsi bien sr qu tous ceux qui y participent de prs ou de loin et
en bncient. Lanc en 1993 sous la supervision dAndr Desvalles
et en collaboration avec Franois Mairesse depuis 2005, le Diction-
naire de musologie est un travail monumental, rsultat de plusieurs
annes de recherche, de questionnement, danalyses, de rvisions et
de dbats au sein du Comit international de musologie de lICOM
(ICOFOM), lequel se consacre particulirement au dveloppement de
notre comprhension de la pratique et de la thorie musale et du tra-
vail qui est effectu quotidiennement au sein des muses.
Le rle, le dveloppement et la gestion des muses ont norm-
ment volu au cours des deux dernires dcennies. Linstitution du
muse sest rsolument recentre sur les visiteurs et de nombreux
grands muses se tournent de plus en plus souvent vers les modles
managriaux dentreprise pour la gestion de leurs oprations quoti-
diennes. La profession musale et son environnement ont ainsi inluc-
tablement volu. Des pays comme la Chine ont connu une augmenta-
tion sans prcdent du phnomne musal, mais ces dveloppements
sont tout aussi importants des niveaux beaucoup plus localiss, par
7
A VA N T - P R O P O S

exemple dans les Petits tats Insulaires en Dveloppement (PEID). Ces

changements passionnants entranent des divergences grandissantes
entre cultures, pour ce qui concerne les spcications du travail et des
formations musales. Dans ce contexte, les outils de rfrence pour les
professionnels de muse et les tudiants en musologie savrent pour
le moins essentiels. La publication lance par lICOM et lUNESCO,
Comment grer un muse, manuel pratique, constituait un manuel de
base de la pratique musale ; ce Dictionnaire de musologie devrait tre
vu comme un pendant du manuel, offrant une perspective complmen-
taire quant la thorie des muses.
Alors que le rythme quotidien du travail musal empche de pou-
voir sarrter et rchir sur ses fondements, un besoin grandissant
safrme, auprs des agents de tous niveaux, pour fournir des rponses
claires et comprhensibles ceux qui questionnent limportance du
muse pour les citoyens et son rle au sein de la socit. Le travail
essentiel dICOFOM, intgr au sein du Dictionnaire, offre ainsi une
rexion pertinente et structure portant sur lensemble des concepts
de base qui sous-tendent notre travail. Bien que pour des raisons de
cohrence, le Dictionnaire valorise une vision francophone de la muso-
logie, la terminologie synthtise ici est comprise et utilise par les
musologues de nombreuses cultures. Cette publication, non exhaus-
tive, synthtise des dcennies de dveloppement de la connaissance
en une investigation systmatique sur les volets tant pistmologiques
qutymologiques du muse, et offre une prsentation approfondie des
concepts principaux de la musologie actuelle, voquant en un prag-
matisme lgant les multiples redondances historiques ainsi que les
controverses actuelles, qui participent du dveloppement de la profes-
sion. Le comit ICOFOM, les diteurs du dictionnaire et les auteurs
ont abord avec sensibilit, rigueur, perspicacit et quilibre, ce travail
de dnition et dexplication de linstitution et de sa pratique.
En avant-premire du dictionnaire encyclopdique dans sa ver-
sion intgrale, ce petit ouvrage a t conu pour rencontrer le public
le plus large possible, prsentant lhistoire et le sens actuel, lvolution
et les transformations des diffrents termes qui composent notre lan-
gage musal. En accord avec lesprit de lICOM visant promouvoir
8
 A VA N T - P R O P O S

la diversit tout en assurant la cohsion, lICOM escompte, linstar

du Code de dontologie de lICOM pour les muses, que cette publica-
tion stimulera un large dbat autant que de nouvelles collaborations
env ued es es ditionsu ltrieures,p luttq ued es implementg arnirl es
bibliothques. La 22e Confrence gnrale triennale, Shanghai, en
Chine, constitue ainsi une excellente opportunit de lancement pour
cet ouvrage de musologie de rfrence. Le rassemblement de profes-
sionnels de muse de toutes nationalits constitue prcisment le type
doccasions qui donne naissance de nouveaux standards et des
outils de rfrence comme celui-ci, tant pour les gnrations actuelles
que futures.

Alissandra Cummins
Prsidente
Conseil international des muses (ICOM)

9
 PRFACE

Depuis ses origines en 1977, dans le droit l de la pense de

lICOM, lICOFOM considre que son but principal vise transfor-
mer la musologie en une discipline scientique et acadmique, desti-
ne au dveloppement des muses et de la profession musale travers
la recherche, ltude et la diffusion des principaux courants de la pen-
se musologique.
Cest ainsi quau sein de lICOFOM sest constitu un groupe de
travail multidisciplinaire qui sest concentr sur lanalyse critique de la
terminologie musale, en focalisant ses rexions sur les concepts fon-
damentaux de cette discipline. Pendant presque vingt ans, ce groupe
du Thesaurus , a ralis des travaux scientiques de recherche et de
synthse remarquables.
Avec la conviction de limportance doffrir au public un registre
de termes musaux qui constitue un vritable matriel de rfrence,
il fut dcid avec lappui du Conseil international des muses de
faire connatre cette publication lors de la Confrence gnrale de
lICOM qui se tiendra Shanghai au mois de novembre 2010. On y
prsentera, dans ce but, cette brochure de vingt-et-un articles comme
avant-premire de la publication prochaine du Dictionnaire de
musologie.
Je voudrais souligner ici que cette publication, phase introductive
dune uvre beaucoup plus vaste, ne se veut pas exhaustive, mais doit
permettre au lecteur de distinguer les diffrents concepts que ren-
11
P R FA C E

ferme chaque terme, de dcouvrir des connotations nouvelles et leurs

liens au sein de lensemble du champ musal.
Le Dr Vinos Sofka na pas travaill en vain lorsquil sefforait, aux
dbuts de lICOFOM, de transformer ce Comit international en une
tribune de rexion et de dbats sur la thorie de la musologie capable
de rchir sur ses propres bases. Cest ainsi que la production intel-
lectuelle permanente des membres de lICOFOM, qui se poursuit de
nos jours, est prserve par le biais de ses publications annuelles : les
ICOFOM Study Series (ISS) qui, durant plus de trente ans, ont enrichi
le corpus thorique de la musologie. La bibliographie internationale
qui en rsulte est assez unique, et constitue un reet dle de lvo-
lution de la pense musologique dans lensemble du monde, depuis
plus de trente ans.
la lecture des articles de la prsente brochure se dgage la nces-
sit de renouveler la rexion quant aux fondements thoriques de la
musologie sous un regard pluriel et intgrateur, ancr dans la richesse
conceptuelle de chaque mot. Les termes prsents dans cette brochure
constituent un exemple clair du travail continu dun groupe de spcia-
listes qui a su comprendre et valoriser la structure fondamentale du
langage, patrimoine culturel immatriel par excellence, et la porte
conceptuelle de la terminologie musologique qui permet dentrevoir
jusqu quel point la thorie et la praxis musale sont indissolublement
lies. Dans le but de sloigner des chemins battus, chaque auteur
a introduit ses observations l o il devait attirer lattention sur une
caractristique propre un terme. Il ne sagit pas de btir des ponts ni
de les reconstruire, mais de partir la rencontre dautres conceptions
plus prcises, la recherche de nouvelles signications culturelles qui
permettent denrichir les bases thoriques dune discipline aussi vaste
que la musologie, destine afrmer le rle du muse et de ses profes-
sionnels dans le monde entier.
Cest un honneur et une grande satisfaction davoir pu assister,
en qualit de prsidente de lICOFOM, au lancement par le biais
de cette brochure dune uvre qui constituera bientt un point de
repre dans la vaste bibliographie musale produite par des membres
12
 P R FA C E

de lICOFOM des diffrents pays et disciplines, tous runis autour

dun idal commun.
tous ceux qui ont apport leur gnreuse collaboration pour la
ralisation de ces deux ouvrages fondamentaux, dont nous sommes tel-
lement ers, je veux envoyer lexpression de ma plus sincre reconnais-
sance :

lICOM, notre organisme de rfrence, pour avoir compris, grce

la sensibilit de son Directeur gnral, M. Julien Anfruns, limpor-
tance dun projet initi voici longtemps et qui verra sa ralisation
grce son intervention ;
Andr Desvalles, auteur, animateur et continuateur dun projet
qui a atteint une importance insouponne et bien mrite ;
Franois Mairesse qui, en pleine jeu nesse, a commenc sa trajec-
toire au sein de lICOFOM en apportant ses talents de chercheur
et de travailleur, en mme temps quil a coordonn avec succs les
activits du groupe Thesaurus et qui, conjointement avec Andr
Desvalles, prpare aujourdhui ldition de la brochure et celle du
Dictionnaire de musologie ;
tous les auteurs des diffrents articles, internationalement
reconnus, experts en musologie dans leurs disciplines respectives ;
ete nna uxt roist raductricesd ontl et ravaila ta ussis cientique,
pour le passage depuis le franais de termes spcialiss dont lqui-
valence ntait pas toujours vidente, ni en anglais, ni en espagnol
ni en chinois.

tous ceux qui ont contribu, chacun leur manire, la concrti-

sation dun rve qui commence devenir ralit, notre plus respec-
tueuse reconnaissance.

Nelly Decarolis
Prsidente
ICOFOM

13
 INTRODUCTION

Quest-ce quun muse ? Comment dnir une collection ? Quest-

ce quune institution ? Que recouvre le terme patrimoine ? Les pro-
fessionnels de muse ont forcment dvelopp, en fonction de leurs
connaissances et de leur exprience, des rponses de telles questions
centrales leur activit. Est-il besoin dy revenir ? Nous le pensons. Le
travail musal consiste en un va-et-vient entre la pratique et la thorie,
cette dernire tant rgulirement sacrie aux mille sollicitations du
labeur quotidien. Il nen reste pas moins que la rexion constitue un
exercice stimulant mais aussi fondamental pour le dveloppement per-
sonnel et celui du monde des muses.
Le but de lICOM, au niveau international, et celui des associations
de muses nationales ou rgionales, vise justement, par le biais de ren-
contres entre professionnels, dvelopper les standards, amliorer
la qualit de la rexion et des ser vices que le monde musal rend la
socit. Plus dune trentaine de comits internationaux semploient ainsi,
chacun dans leur secteur, cette rexion collective dont tmoignent
de remarquables publications. Mais comment sarticule cet ensemble
si riche de rexions sur la conservation, les nouvelles technologies,
lducation, les demeures historiques, la gestion, les professions, etc. ?
Comment sorganise le secteur des muses ou, de manire plus gn-
rale, comment sorganise ce que lon peut appeler le champ musal ?
Cest ce type de questions que sattelle, depuis sa cration en 1977, le
Comit de musologie de lICOM (ICOFOM), notamment par le biais
de ses publications (ICOFOM Study Series) qui tentent de recenser et
15
INTRODUCTION

de synthtiser la diversit des opinions en matire de musologie. Cest

dans ce contexte que le projet dtablir un recueil des Concepts cls de
musologie, plac sous la coordination dAndr Desvalles, a t lanc
en 1993 par Martin R. Schrer, Prsident de lICOFOM. Celui-ci a t
rejoint huit ans plus tard par Norma Rusconi (qui devait malheureu-
sement dcder en 2007) et par Franois Mairesse. Au l des annes,
un consensus sest dgag pour tenter de prsenter, en une vingtaine
de termes, un panorama du paysage si vari quoffre le champ musal.
Ce travail de rexion a connu une certaine acclration ces dernires
annes. Plusieurs versions prliminaires des articles ont t rdiges
(dans les ISS et dans la revue Publics et muses, devenue Culture et
muses). Cest un rsum de chacun de ces termes qui est ici propos,
prsentant de manire condense diffrents aspects de chacun de ces
concepts. Ceux-ci seront en effet abords, de manire nettement plus
dveloppe, dans des articles dune dizaine une trentaine de pages
chacun, ainsi que dun dictionnaire denviron 400 termes, au sein du
Dictionnaire de musologie dont la publication est en cours.
Ce travail repose sur une vision internationale du muse, nourrie
partir de nombreux changes au sein dICOFOM. Pour des raisons
de cohrence linguistique, les auteurs proviennent tous de pays franco-
phones : Belgique, Canada, France, Suisse. Il sagit dYves Bergeron,
Serge Chaumier, Jean Davallon, Bernard Deloche, Andr Desvalles,
Nomie Drouguet, Franois Mairesse, Raymond Montpetit et Martin
R. Schrer. Une premire version de ce travail a t prsente et lon-
guement dbattue lors du trente-deuxime symposium annuel de
lICOFOM, Lige et Mariemont en 2009. Deux points mritent
dtre rapidement discuts ici : la composition du comit de rdaction,
et le choix des vingt-et-un termes.

La fran co pho nie musale

dans le concer t de lICOM
Pourquoi avoir choisi un comit compos quasi-exclusivement de
francophones ? Beaucoup de raisons, qui ne sont pas seulement pra-
tiques, expliquent un tel choix. On sait lutopie que reprsente lide
16
 INTRODUCTION

dun travail collectif, international et parfaitement harmonieux, ds

lors quune langue commune (scientique ou non) nest pas partage
par chacun. Les comits internationaux de lICOM connaissent bien
cette situation qui, au risque dun Babel, conduit rgulirement pri-
vilgier une langue langlais, lingua franca mondiale. Forcment,
ce choix du plus petit dnominateur commun sopre au prot de
quelques-uns qui la matrisent parfaitement, souvent au dtriment de
nombreux autres moins connaisseurs de la langue de Shakespeare, for-
cs de ne prsenter quune version caricaturale de leur pense. Lusage
de lune des trois langues de lICOM savrait vident, mais ds lors,
laquelle choisir ? Lorigine des premiers intervenants, rassembls
autour dAndr Desvalles (qui a longuement travaill avec Georges
Henri Rivire, premier directeur de lICOM), a rapidement conduit
la slection du franais, mais dautres arguments plaidaient galement
en faveur de ce choix. Sils sont loin dtre exempts de toute critique,
la plupart des rdacteurs lisent, sinon les trois, du moins au moins
deux des langues de lICOM. On sait la richesse des contributions
anglo-amricaines pour le champ musal ; on se doit de souligner que
la plupart de leurs auteurs quelques exceptions notoires, comme les
gures emblmatiques dun Patrick Boylan ou dun Peter Davis ne
lisent ni lespagnol, ni le franais. Le choix du franais li, nous lesp-
rons, une assez bonne connaissance de la littrature trangre, per-
met toutefois dembrasser, sinon la totalit des contributions dans le
secteur des muses, du moins quelques-uns de ses pans gnralement
peu explors et pourtant trs importants au sein de lICOM. Nous
sommes cependant bien conscients des limites de nos recherches et
esprons que ce travail donnera lide dautres quipes de prsenter,
travers leur propre langue (lallemand ou litalien, par exemple), un
regard diffrent sur le champ musal.
Dautre part, un certain nombre de consquences lies la structu-
ration de la pense rsultent du choix dune langue comme lillustre
une comparaison des dnitions du muse par lICOM de 1974 et de
2007, la premire originellement pense en franais, la seconde en
anglais. Nous sommes conscients que cet ouvrage naurait pas t le
mme sil avait t dabord crit en espagnol, en anglais ou en alle-
17
INTRODUCTION

mand, tant au niveau de sa structure que du choix des termes, mais

aussi dun certain parti pris thorique ! Il nest gure tonnant de voir
que le plus grand nombre de guides pratiques sur les muses sont crits
en anglais (comme en tmoigne lexcellent manuel dirig par Patrick
Boylan, Comment grer un muse : manuel pratique1) alors quils sont
bien plus rares en France ou dans les anciens pays de lEst, o lon pri-
vilgie lessai et la rexion.
Il serait cependant par trop caricatural de distinguer, au niveau de
la littrature musale, un volet pratique, strictement anglo-amricain,
et un volet thorique, plus proche de la pense latine : le nombre
dessais rdigs par des penseurs anglo-saxons, dans le champ musal,
dment totalement une telle vision des choses. Il nen reste pas moins
quun certain nombre de diffrences existe, et que la diffrence est tou-
jours enrichissante connatre et apprcier. Nous avons essay den
rendre compte.
Il importe enn de saluer, travers le choix du franais, la mmoire
du travail fondamental de thorisation qui fut port pendant longtemps
par les deux premiers directeurs franais de lICOM, Georges Henri
Rivire et Hugues de Varine, sans lequel une grande partie du travail
musal, tant en Europe continentale quen Amrique ou en Afrique,
ne peut tre comprise. Une rexion de fond sur le monde musal ne
peut faire limpasse sur son histoire, comme elle se doit de garder en
mmoire ses origines ancres dans le sicle des Lumires et sa transfor-
mation (son institutionnalisation) la Rvolution franaise, mais aussi
le travail thorique fondamental qui fut labor de lautre ct du mur
de Berlin, partir des annes 1960, alors que le monde tait encore
coup en blocs antagonistes. Si la donne gopolitique a fondamenta-
lement t bouleverse depuis un quart de sicle, il importe que le
secteur musal noublie pas son histoire ce qui serait un comble pour
un outil de transmission de la culture ! Pourtant, le risque existe dune
mmoire courte, qui ne garderait de lhistoire de linstitution musale
que la manire de la grer et de faire venir des visiteurs

1. Boylan P. (coord.), Comment grer un muse : manuel pratique, Paris, ICOM/Unesco, 2006.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001478/147854f.pdf (consultation : avril 2010).

18
 INTRODUCTION

Une structure en constante volution

Demble, lobjectif des auteurs na pas t de raliser un trait
dnitif sur le monde du muse, un systme thorique idal mais
coup de la ralit. La formule relativement modeste dune liste de
vingt-et-un termes a t choisie pour tenter de baliser dautant de jalons
une rexion continue sur le champ musal. Le lecteur ne sera pas
surpris de trouver ici certains termes dusage commun : muse, collec-
tion, patrimoine, public, etc., dont nous esprons quil dcouvrira un
certain nombre de sens ou de rexions qui lui sont moins familiers. Il
sera peut-tre tonn de ne pas en voir gurer dautres, par exemple le
mot conservation qui est repris dans larticle prservation . Sous
ce terme par contre, nous navons pas repris tous les dveloppements
qui auraient pu tre faits par les membres du Comit de conservation
(ICOM-CC), dont les travaux stendent bien au-del de nos prten-
tions dans ce domaine. Certains autres termes, plus thoriques, appa-
ratront a priori plus exotiques au praticien : musal, musalisation,
musologie, etc. Notre objectif visait prsenter, dune certaine
manire, la vision la plus ouverte possible de ce qui peut tre observ
dans le monde des muses, en ce compris nombre dexpriences plus
ou moins inhabituelles, susceptibles dinuencer considrablement,
terme, le devenir des muses cest notamment le cas du concept de
muse virtuel et des cybermuses.
Commenons par indiquer les limites de ce travail : il sagit de pro-
poser une rexion thorique et critique sur le monde des muses dans
un sens large qui dpasse les muses classiques. On peut bien sr
partir du muse, pour tenter de le dnir. Il est dit, dans la dnition
de lICOM, quil sagit dune institution au service de la socit et de
son dveloppement. Que signient ces deux termes fondamentaux ?
Mais surtout les dnitions napportent pas de rponse immdiate
cette question : pourquoi y a-t-il des muses ? On sait que le monde des
muses est li la notion de patrimoine, mais il est aussi bien plus vaste
que cela. Comment voquer ce contexte plus large ? Par le concept
de musal (ou de champ musal), qui est le champ thorique traitant
de ce questionnement, au mme titre que le politique est le champ
19
INTRODUCTION

de la rexion politique. Le questionnement critique et thorique li

ce champ musal est la musologie, tandis que son aspect pratique
est dsign par la musographie. Pour chacun de ces termes, il nexiste
souvent pas une, mais plusieurs dnitions qui ont uctu au cours du
temps. Ce sont les diffrents aspects de chacun de ces termes qui sont
voqus ici.
Le monde des muses a largement volu dans le temps, tant au
point de vue de ses fonctions quau travers de sa matrialit et de
celle des principaux lments sur lequel sappuie son travail. Concr-
tement, le muse travaille avec des objets qui forment des collections.
Le facteur humain est videmment fondamental pour comprendre le
fonctionnement musal, tant pour ce qui concerne le personnel tra-
vaillant au sein du muse ses professions, et son rapport lthique
que le public ou les publics auxquels le muse est destin. Quelles
sont les fonctions du muse ? Celui-ci opre une activit que lon peut
dcrire comme un processus de musalisation et de visualisation. Plus
gnralement, on parle de fonctions musales, qui ont t dcrites de
plusieurs manires diffrentes au cours du temps. Nous nous sommes
fonds sur lun des modles les plus connus, labor la n des
annes 1980 par la Reinwardt Academie dAmsterdam, qui distingue
trois fonctions: la prservation (qui comprend lacquisition, la conser-
vation et la gestion des collections), la recherche et la communication.
La communication elle-mme comprend lducation et lexposition, les
deux fonctions sans doute les plus visibles du muse. cet gard, il
nous est apparu que la fonction ducative, elle-mme, stait sufsam-
ment dveloppe, au cours de ces dernires dcennies, pour que le
terme de mdiation lui soit adjoint. Lune des diffrences majeures qui
nous est apparue ces dernires annes rside dans le poids de plus en
plus important attach aux notions de gestion, aussi pensons-nous, de
par ses spcicits, quil convient de la traiter comme une fonction
musale, de mme, probablement, que larchitecture du muse, dont
limportance va en croissant et bouleverse parfois lquilibre entre les
autresf onctions.
Comment dnir le muse ? Par le mode conceptuel (muse, patri-
moine, institution, socit, thique, musal), par la rexion thorique
20
 INTRODUCTION

et pratique (musologie, musographie), par son mode de fonctionne-

ment (objet, collection, musalisation), par le biais de ses acteurs (pro-
fession, public) ou par les fonctions qui en dcoulent (prservation,
recherche, communication, ducation, exposition, mdiation, gestion,
architecture) ? Autant de points de vue possibles, quil convient de croi-
ser pour tenter de mieux comprendre un phnomne en plein dvelop-
pement, dont les rcentes volutions ne laissent pas indiffrents !
Au dbut des annes 1980, le monde des muses connaissait une
vague de changements sans prcdent : longtemps considr comme
un lieu litiste et discret, voici quil proposait une sorte de coming out,
afchant son got pour les architectures spectaculaires, les grandes
expositions clinquantes et populaires, et un certain mode de consom-
mation dans lequel il entendait bien prendre place. La popularit du
muse ne sest pas dmentie, leur nombre a au moins doubl en lespace
dun peu plus dune gnration, et les nouveaux projets de construc-
tion de Shanghai Abou Dhabi, laube des changements gopoli-
tiques que nous promet lavenir, savrent toujours plus tonnants. Une
gnration plus tard, en effet, le champ musal est toujours en train de
se transformer : si lhomo touristicus semble parfois avoir remplac le
visiteur dans les curs de cibles du march musal, il nest cepen-
dant pas interdit de sinterroger sur les perspectives de ce dernier. Le
monde des muses, tel que nous le connaissons, a-t-il encore un ave-
nir ? La civilisation matrielle, cristallise par le muse, nest-elle pas
en train de connatre des changements radicaux ? Nous ne prtendons
pas ici rpondre de pareilles questions, mais nous esprons que celui
qui sintresse lavenir des muses ou, de manire plus pratique, au
futur de son propre tablissement, trouvera dans ces quelques pages
quelques lments susceptibles denrichir sa rexion.

Franois Mairesse et Andr Desvalles

21
ARCHITECTURE
A donn lieu, par extension, lappel-
n. f. quival. angl. : architecture ; esp. : arqui-
tectura ; all. : Architektur ; it. : architettura ;
port. : arquitectura (br. : arquitetura).
Larchitecture (musale) se dnit
comme lart de concevoir et dam-
nager ou de construire un espace des-
tin abriter les fonctions spciques
dun muse et, plus particulirement,
celles dexposition, de conser vation
prventive et active, dtude, de ges-
tion et daccueil.
Depuis linvention du muse
moderne, partir de la n du XVIIIe
et du dbut du XIXe sicle, et paral-
llement la reconversion danciens
btiments patrimoniaux, une archi-
tecture spcique sest dveloppe,
lie aux conditions de prser vation,
de recherche et de communication
des collections, notamment travers
leur exposition temporaire ou perma-
nente, dont tmoignent autant les pre-
mires constructions que les uvres
les plus contemporaines. Le vocabu-
laire architectural a lui-mme condi-
tionn le dveloppement de la notion
de muse. Ainsi, la forme du temple
coupole avec faade portique et
colonnade sest impose en mme
temps que celle de la galerie, conue
comme lun des principaux modles
pour les muses de beaux-arts, et a
lation galleria, Galerie et gallery, en
Italie, en Allemagne ou dans les pays
anglo-amricains.
Si la forme des constructions
musales a souvent t axe sur la
conser vation des col lections, elle
a volu mesure que se dvelop-
paient de nouvelles fonctions. Cest
ainsi que, aprs avoir cherch des
solutions pour un meilleur clai-
rage des expts (Soufot, Brbion,
1778 ; J.-B. Le Brun, 1787), pour
leur donner une meilleure rpar-
tition dans lensemble du bti ment
(Mechel, 1778-84) et pour mieux
structurer lespace dexposition
(Leo von Klenze, 1816-30), on prit
conscience, au dbut du XXe sicle,
de la ncessit dallger les exposi-
tions perma nentes. Pour cela, on
cra des rserves, soit en sacri ant
des salles dexposition, soit en am-
nageant des espaces en sous-sol,
soit en construisant de nouveaux
bti ments. Dautre part, on tenta le
plus possible de neutra liser lenvi-
ronnement des expts quitte
sacri er une par tie ou la tota lit des
dcors historiques existants. Ces
amliorations ont t faci lites par
larrive de llectricit qui a permis
de reconsidrer compltement les
modes dclairage.
23
 De nouvelles fonctions sont appa-
rues pendant la seconde moiti du
e
XX sicle qui ont notamment conduit
des modications architecturales
majeures : multiplication des exposi-
tions temporaires pouvant permettre
une rpartition diffrente des collec-
tions entre les espaces dexposition
permanente et ceux des rserves ;
dveloppement des structures
daccueil, de cration (ateliers pda-
gogiques) et de repos, notamment
par la conception de grands espaces
ad hoc ; dveloppement de librairies,
restaurants et cration de boutiques
pour la vente de produits drivs.
Mais, paralllement, la dcentrali-
sation par regroupement et la sous-
traitance de certaines fonctions a
exig la construction ou lamnage-
ment de certains btiments spciali-
ss autonomes : dabord des ateliers
de restauration et laboratoires qui
peuvent se spcialiser tout en se met-
tant au ser vice de plusieurs muses,
puis des rserves implantes en
dehors des espaces dexposition.
Larchitecte est celui qui conoit et
trace le plan dun dice et en dirige
lexcution ; plus largement, celui
qui amnage lenveloppe autour
des collections, du personnel et du
public. Larchitecture, dans cette
perspective, touche lensemble des
lments lis lespace et la lumire de musographe, moins que leur
au sein du muse, aspects en appa-
rence secondaires dont les enjeux se
sont rvls dterminants quant la
signication engage (mise en ordre
chronologique, visibilit pour tous,
neutralit du fond, etc.). Les bti-
24
ments des muses sont donc conus et
construits selon un programme archi-
tectural tabli par les responsables
scientiques et administratifs de
ltablissement. Il arrive cependant
que la dcision concernant la d-
nition du programme et les limites
dinter vention de larchitecte ne
soient pas rparties de cette manire.
En tant quart ou que technique de
construction et damnagement dun
muse, larchitecture peut se prsen-
ter comme uvre totale, intgrant
lensemble du dispositif musal.
Cette dernire perspective, parfois
revendique par certains architectes,
ne peut tre envisage que dans la
mesure o larchitecture compren-
drait la rexion musographique
elle-mme, ce qui est loin dtre tou-
jours le cas.
Il arrive ainsi que les programmes
remis aux architectes incluent les
amnagements intrieurs, laissant
ces derniers si aucune distinction
nest faite entre les amnagements
gnraux et la musographie la pos-
sibilit de donner libre cours leur
crativit , parfois au dtriment du
muse. Certains architectes se sont
spcialiss dans la ralisation dexpo-
sitions et sont devenus scnographes
ou expographes . Rares sont ceux
qui peuvent revendiquer le titre
agence ninclue ce type de comp-
tence spcique.
Les enjeux actuels de larchitec-
ture musale reposent sur le conit
existant logiquement entre, dune
part, les intrts de larchitecte (qui
se trouve lui-mme mis en valeur rant de la fonction. (Perret, 1931).
aujourdhui par la visibilit interna- Un regard sur les crations architec-
tionale de ce type de constructions), turales actuelles permet de saperce-
dautre part ceux qui sont lis la voir que, si la plupart des architectes
prser vation et la mise en valeur de la prennent bien en compte les exi-
collection ; enn la prise en compte gences du programme, beaucoup
du confort des diffrents publics. continuent privilgier le bel objet
Une telle question tait dj mise qui se voit plutt que le bon outil.
en exergue par larchitecte Auguste Z DRIVS : ARCHITECTE DINTRIEUR, PROGRAMME
Perret : Un vaisseau pour otter ne ARCHITECTURAL.
doit-il pas tre conu tout autrement
quune locomotive ? La spcicit ) CORRLATS : DCOR, CLAIRAGE, EXPOGRAPHIE,
MUSOGRAPHIE, SCNOGRAPHIE, PROGRAMME MUSO-
de ldice-muse incombe larchi- GRAPHIQUE.
tecte, qui crera lorgane en sinspi-

25
 C
COL LEC TION
n. f. quival. angl. : collection ; esp. : coleccin ;
all. : Sammlung, Kollektion ; it. : collezione ; rac-
colta, port. : coleco (br. : coleo).
De manire gnrale, une collection
peut tre dnie comme un ensemble
dobjets matriels ou immatriels
(uvres, artefacts, mentefacts, spci-
mens, documents darchives, tmoi-
gnages, etc.) quun individu ou un
tablissement a pris soin de rassem-
bler, de classer, de slectionner, de
conser ver dans un contexte scuris
et le plus souvent de communiquer
un public plus ou moins large, selon
quelle est publique ou prive.
Pour constituer une vritable col-
lection, il faut par ailleurs que ces
regroupements dobjets forment un
ensemble (relativement) cohrent et
signiant. Il est impor tant de ne pas
confondre col lection et fonds, qui
dsigne un ensemble de documents
de toutes natures r unis automati-
quement, crs et/ou accumuls et
uti liss par une personne physique
ou par une famille dans lexercice
de ses activits ou de ses fonctions.
(Bureau canadien des archivistes,
1990). Dans le cas dun fonds, contrai-
rement une col lection, il ny a pas
de slection et rarement lintention
dec onstitueru ne nsemble cohrent.
26
Quelle soit matrielle ou imma-
trielle, la collection gure au cur
des activits du muse. La mission
dun muse est dacqurir, de pr-
ser ver et de valoriser ses collections
an de contribuer la sauvegarde
du patrimoine naturel, culturel et
scientique (Code de dontologie
de lICOM, 2006). Sans pour autant
la dsigner explicitement, la dni-
tion du muse par lICOM demeure
essentiellement lie un tel principe,
conrmant lopinion dj ancienne de
Louis Rau : On a compris que les
muses sont faits pour les collections
et quil faut les construire pour ainsi
dire du dedans au dehors, en mode-
lant le contenant sur le contenu
(Rau, 1908). Cette conception ne
correspond plus toujours certains
modles de muses qui ne possdent
pas de collection ou dont la collec-
tion ne se situe pas au cur du projet
scientique. Le concept de collection
gure galement parmi ceux qui sont
les plus aisment rpandus dans le
monde des muses, mme si on a pri-
vilgi, comme on le verra plus bas,
la notion d objet de muse . On
dnombrera cependant trois accep-
tions possibles du concept, celui-ci
variant essentiellement en fonction
de deux facteurs : le caractre insti-
tutionnel de la collection dune part,
la matrialit ou la non-matrialit
des supports dautre part.
1. Le terme col lection tant
dun usage commun, on a rguli-
rement tent de distinguer la col lec-
tion de muse des autres types de
col lections. De manire gnrale
(car ce nest pas le cas pour tous les
tablissements), la col lection ou les
collections du muse se prsente
comme la source autant que la na-
lit des activits du muse peru
comme institution. Les col lections
peuvent ainsi tre dnies comme
les objets col lects du muse,
acquis et prser vs en raison de leur
valeur exemplative, de rfrence ou
comme objets dimportance esth-
tique ou ducative (Burcaw, 1997).
Cest ainsi quon a pu voquer le ph-
nomne musal comme linstitution-
na lisation de la col lection prive. Il
convient par ailleurs de remarquer
que si le conser vateur ou le person-
nel du muse ne se prsentent pas
comme des collectionneurs, on doit
cependant reconnatre que ces der-
niers entretiennent depuis toujours
des liens troits avec les conser va-
teurs. Le muse doit norma lement
mener une politique dacquisition
ce que souligne lICOM, qui parle
ga lement de politique de col lecte. Il
slectionne, achte, col lecte, reoit.
Le verbe col lectionner est peu
utilis, car trop directement li au
geste du col lectionneur priv ainsi
qu ses drives (Baudrillard, 1968)
cest--dire le collectionnisme et
laccumulation, appels pjorative-
ment collectionnite . Dans cette
perspective, la collection est conue
la fois comme le rsultat et comme
la source dun programme scienti-
que visant lacquisition et la
recherche, par tir de tmoins mat-
riels et immatriels de lhomme et
de son environnement. Ce dernier
critre ne permet cependant pas de
distinguer le muse de la col lection
prive, dans la mesure o celle-ci
peut tre runie avec un objectif par-
faitement scientique, de mme quil
arrive parfois au muse dacqurir
desc ol lectionsp rives,p arfoisd ve-
loppes dans une intention bien peu
scientique. Cest alors le caractre
institutionnel du muse qui prvaut
pour circonscrire le terme. Selon
Jean Davallon, dans le muse, les
objets sont toujours lments de sys-
tmes ou de catgories (1992). Or,
parmi les systmes affrents une
col lection, outre linventaire crit
qui est la premire exigence dune
col lection musale, une autre obli-
gation qui nest pas des moindres
est ladoption dun systme de clas-
sement permettant de dcrire, mais
aussi de retrouver rapidement, tout
item parmi des milliers ou des mil-
lions dobjets (la taxinomie, par
exemple, est la science du classement
des organismes vivants). Les usages
modernes en matire de classement
ont largement t inuencs par
linformatique, mais la documenta-
tion des col lections demeure une acti-
vit requrant un savoir spcique
rigoureux, fond sur la constitution
dun thsaurus dcrivant les liens
entre les diverses catgories dobjets.
27
 2. La dnition de la collection
peut galement tre envisage dans
une perspective plus gnrale ras-
semblant collectionneurs privs
et muses, mais en partant de sa
suppose matrialit. Celle-ci, ds
lors quelle est constitue dobjets
matriels comme ce fut le cas,
encore trs rcemment, pour la d-
nition du muse par lICOM se cir-
conscrit par le lieu qui labrite. Ainsi,
Krzysztof Pomian dnit la collec-
tion comme tout ensemble dobjets
naturels ou articiels, maintenus tem-
porairement ou dnitivement hors
du circuit dactivits conomiques,
soumis une protection spciale
dans un lieu clos amnag cet
effet, et expos au regard (Pomian,
1987). Pomian dnit ds lors la
collection par sa valeur essentielle-
ment symbolique, dans la mesure o
lobjet perd son utilit ou sa valeur
dchange pour devenir porteur de
sens ( smiophore ou porteur de
signication) (voir Objet).
3. Lvolution rcente du muse
et notamment la prise en compte
du patrimoine immatriel a mis
en valeur le caractre plus gnral
de la collection, tout en faisant appa-
ratre de nouveaux ds. Les collec-
tions plus immatrielles (savoir-faire,
rituels ou contes en ethnologie, mais
aussi performances, gestes et instal-
lations phmres en art contem-
porain) incitent la mise au point
de nouveaux dispositifs dacquisi-
tion. La seule matrialit des objets
devient ainsi parfois secondaire et
la documentation du processus de
collecte que lon retrouve depuis
28
longtemps, tant en ethnologie quen
archologie change de nature pour
se prsenter comme information
dterminante, laquelle accompa-
gnera non seulement la recherche,
mais aussi les dispositifs de commu-
nication au public. La collection du
muse napparat depuis toujours
comme pertinente que lorsquelle se
dnit par rapport la documenta-
tion qui lui est adjointe, mais aussi
par les travaux qui ont pu en rsulter.
Cette volution amne la conception
dune acception plus large de la col-
lection, comme une runion dobjets
conser vant leur individualit et ras-
sembls de manire intentionnelle,
selon une logique spcique. Cette
dernire acception, la plus ouverte,
englobe aussi bien les collections de
cure-dents que les collections clas-
siques des muses, mais galement
un rassemblement de tmoignages,
de souvenirs ou dexpriences scien-
tiques.
Z DRIVS : COLLECTE, COLLECTIONNER, COLLECTION-
NEUR, COLLECTIONNISME, COLLECTIONNEMENT.
) CORRLATS : ACQUISITION, TUDE, PRSERVA-
TION, CATALOGAGE, DOCUMENTATION, RECHERCHE,
CONSERVATION, RESTAURATION, EXPOSITION, GESTION
DES COLLECTIONS, VALORISATION DES COLLECTIONS,
ALINATION (DEACCESSION), RESTITUTION.
COMMU NI C ATION
n. f. quival. angl. : communication ; esp. :
comunicacin ; all. : Kommunikation ; it. : com-
municazione ; port. : communicao.
La communication (C) consiste
vhiculer une information entre un
ou plusieurs metteurs (E) et un ou
plusieurs rcepteurs (R) par linter-
mdiaire dun canal (modle ECR de
Lasswell, 1948). Son concept est tel-
lement gnral quelle ne se restreint
pas aux processus humains porteurs
dinformations caractre sman-
tique, mais se rencontre aussi bien
dans les machines que dans le monde
animal ou la vie sociale (Wiener,
1948). Le terme a deux acceptions
usuelles, que lon retrouve diff-
rents degrs dans les muses, selon
que le phnomne soit rciproque
(ECR) ou non (ECR). Dans
le premier cas, la communication
est dite interactive, dans le second
elle est unilatrale et dilate dans le
temps. Lorsquelle est unilatrale et
quelle sopre dans le temps, et non
seulement dans lespace, la communi-
cation sappelle transmission (Debray,
2000).
Dans le contexte musal, la
communication apparat la fois
comme la prsentation des rsul-
tats de la recherche effectue sur
les collections (catalogues, articles,
confrences, expositions) et comme
la mise disposition des objets
composant ces collections (exposi-
tions permanentes et informations
lies celles-ci). Ce parti-pris pr-
sente lexposition comme partie int-
grante du processus de recherche,
mais galement comme llment
dun systme de communication plus
gnral comprenant par exemple
les publications scientiques. Cest
cette logique qui a prvalu avec le sys-
tme PRC (Prservation-Recherche-
Communication) propos par la
Reinwardt Academie dAmsterdam,
incluant dans le processus de commu-
nication les fonctions dexposition,
de publication et dducation rem-
plies par le muse.
1. Lapplication de ce terme au
muse na rien dvident, en dpit
de lusage quen a fait jusquen 2007
lICOM dans sa dnition du muse,
dnition qui prcise que le muse
fait des recherches concernant les
tmoins matriels de lhomme et de
son environnement, acquiert ceux-
l, les conserve, les communique et
notamment les expose . Jusque dans
la seconde moiti du XXe sicle, la prin-
cipale fonction du muse a consist
prser ver les richesses culturelles
ou naturelles engranges, ventuelle-
ment les exposer, sans que soit for-
mule explicitement une intention
de communiquer, cest--dire de faire
circuler un message ou une informa-
tion auprs dun public rcepteur. Et
lorsque, dans les annes 1990, on se
demandait si le muse est vraiment
un mdia (Davallon, 1992 ; Rasse,
1999), cest bien parce que la fonc-
tion de communication du muse
napparaissait pas tous comme une
vidence. Dune part, lide dun mes-
sage musal nest apparue quassez
tard, notamment avec les expositions
thmatiques dans lesquelles a long-
temps prvalu lintention didactique ;
dautre part, le rcepteur est demeur
longtemps une inconnue et ce nest
quassez rcemment que se sont dve-
loppes les tudes de frquentation
et les enqutes de public. Dans la
29
 perspective mise en exergue par la
dnition de lICOM, la communica-
tion musale apparat comme le par-
tage, avec les diffrents publics, des
objets faisant partie de la collection
et des informations rsultant de la
recherche effectue sur ces objets.
2. On relvera la spcicit de la
communication qui sexerce par le
muse : (1) elle est le plus souvent uni-
latrale, cest--dire sans possibilit
de rponse de la part du public rcep-
teur, dont on a fort justement souli-
gn la passivit excessive (McLuhan
et Parker, 1969), ce qui nempche
pas le visiteur de devoir sinvestir
lui-mme, de manire interactive ou
non, dans ce mode de communica-
tion (Hooper-Greenhil, 1995) ; (2)
elle nest pas essentiellement verbale
et ne peut pas vraiment sapparenter
la lecture dun texte (Davallon,
1992), mais elle opre par la prsenta-
tion sensible des objets exposs : En
tant que systme de communication,
le muse dpend alors du langage
non verbal des objets et des phno-
mnes obser vables. Cest dabord et
avant tout un langage visuel qui peut
devenir un langage audible ou tac-
tile. Son pouvoir de communication
est si intense quau plan de lthique,
son utilisation doit tre une priorit
pour les professionnels des muses
(Cameron, 1968).
3. De manire plus gnrale, la
communication sest progressive-
ment impose, la n du XXe sicle,
comme principe moteur du fonc-
tionnement du muse. En ce sens,
le muse communique de manire
30
spcique par le biais dune mthode
qui lui est propre, mais aussi en uti-
lisant toutes les autres techniques
de communication au risque, peut-
tre, de rduire son investissement
dans ce quil a de plus spcique. De
nombreux muses les plus impor-
tants disposent dune direction des
publics ou dune direction des pro-
grammes publics qui dveloppe les
activits destines communiquer
et toucher divers publics plus ou
moins bien cibls, au travers dacti-
vits classiques ou novatrices (v-
nements, rencontres, publications,
animations hors les murs , etc.).
Dans un tel contexte, les investisse-
ments trs importants raliss par
de nombreux muses sur internet
compltent de manire signica-
tive la logique communicationnelle
du muse. En rsultent nombre
dexpositions numriques ou cyber-
expositions (domaine dans lequel le
muse peut prsenter une expertise
relle), de catalogues mis en ligne, de
forums de discussion plus ou moins
sophistiqus, et dincursions nom-
breuses au sein des rseaux sociaux
(YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc.).
4. Le dbat relatif la modalit
de la communication opre par le
muse pose la question de la transmis-
sion. Le manque dinteractivit chro-
nique de la communication au muse
a conduit se demander comment
on pourrait rendre le visiteur plus
actif en sollicitant sa participation
(McLuhan et Parker, 2008 [1969]).
On peut, certes, supprimer les cartels
et mme la trame narrative (ou story
line) an que le public construise
lui-mme la logique propre de son
parcours, mais cela ne rend pas
pour autant la communication inter-
active. Les seuls lieux o sest dve-
loppe une certaine interactivit (le
Palais de la dcouverte ou la Cit
des sciences et de lindustrie, Paris,
lExploratorium de San Francisco
par exemple) tendent sapparenter
aux parcs de loisirs, qui multiplient
les attractions caractre ludique.
Il semble cependant que la vritable
tche du muse sapparente plutt
la transmission comprise comme une
communication unilatrale dans le
temps en vue de permettre chacun
de sapproprier le bagage culturel qui
assure son hominisation et sa sociali-
sation.
) CORRLATS : ACTION CULTURELLE, EXPOSITION,
DUCATION, DIFFUSION, MDIATION, MDIA, MISE EN
PUBLIC, TRANSMISSION.
31
 E
DU C ATION
n. f. (du latin educatio, educere, guider,
conduire hors de) quival. angl. : education ;
esp. : educacin ; all. : Erziehung, Museums-
pdagogik ; it : istruzione ; port. : educao.
Dune manire gnrale, lducation
signie la mise en uvre des moyens
propres assurer la formation et le
dveloppement dun tre humain et
de ses facults. Lducation musale
peut tre dnie comme un ensemble
de valeurs, de concepts, de savoirs et
de pratiques dont le but est le dvelop-
pement du visiteur ; travail daccultu-
ration, elle sappuie notamment sur
la pdagogie, le dveloppement et
lpanouissement, ainsi que lappren-
tissage de nouveaux savoirs.
1. Le concept dducation doit se
dnir en fonction dautres termes,
en premier lieu celui dinstruction
qui est relatif lesprit et sentend
des connaissances que lon acquiert
et par lesquels on devient habile et
savant (Toraille, 1985). Lduca-
tion est relative la fois au cur et
lesprit, et sentend des connaissances
que lon entend actualiser dans une
relation qui met en mouvement des
savoirs pour dvelopper une appro-
priation et un rinvestissement
personnalis. Cest laction de dve-
lopper un ensemble de connaissances
32
et de valeurs morales, physiques,
intellectuelles, scientiques, etc. Le
savoir, le savoir-faire, ltre et le
savoir-tre forment quatre grandes
composantes du domaine ducatif.
Le terme ducation vient du latin
educere , conduire hors de [s.-e.
hors de lenfance], ce qui suppose une
dimension active daccompagnement
dans les processus de transmission.
Elle a lien avec la notion dveil qui
vise susciter la curiosit, conduire
sinterroger et dvelopper la
rexion. Lducation, notamment
informelle, vise donc dvelopper
les sens et la prise de conscience.
Elle est un dveloppement, qui sup-
pose davantage mutation et trans-
formation, que conditionnement ou
inculcation, notions auxquelles elle
tend sopposer. La formation de
lesprit passe donc par une instruc-
tion qui transmet des savoirs utiles
et une ducation qui les rend trans-
formables et susceptibles dtre rin-
vestis par lindividu au prot de son
hominisation.
2. Lducation, dans un contexte
plus spciquement musal, est lie
la mobilisation de savoirs, issus du
muse, visant au dveloppement et
lpanouissement des individus,
notamment par lintgration de ces
savoirs, le dveloppement de nou-
velles sensibilits et la ralisation de
nouvelles expriences. La pdago-
gie musale est un cadre thorique
et mthodologique au ser vice de
llaboration, de la mise en uvre et
de lvaluation dactivits ducatives Lun sous-entend une contrainte et
en milieu musal, activits dont le
but principal est lapprentissage des
savoirs (connaissances, habilets et
attitudes) chez le visiteur (Allard et
Boucher, 1998). Lapprentissage se d-
nit comme un acte de perception,
dinteraction et dintgration dun
objet par un sujet , ce qui conduit
une acquisition de connaissances
ou dveloppement dhabilets ou
dattitudes (Allard et Boucher,
1998). La relation dapprentissage
concerne la manire propre au visi-
teur dintgrer lobjet dapprentis-
sage. Science de lducation ou de la
formation intellectuelle, si la pdago-
gie se rfre davantage lenfance, la
notion de didactique se pense comme
thorie de la diffusion des connais-
sances, manire de prsenter un
savoir un individu quel que soit son
ge. Lducation est plus large et vise
lautonomie de la personne.
Dautres notions conjointes
peuvent tre invoques qui viennent
nuancer et enrichir ces approches.
Les notions danimation et daction
culturelle, comme celle de mdiation,
sont couramment invoques pour
caractriser le travail conduit avec
les publics dans leffort de transmis-
sion du muse. Je tapprends , dit
lenseignant, Je te fais savoir , dit
le mdiateur (Caillet et Lehalle, 1995)
(voir Mdiation). Cette distinction
entend reter la diffrence entre un
acte de formation et une dmarche de
sensibilisation sollicitant un individu
qui nira le travail selon lappropria-
tion quil fera des contenus proposs.
une obligation alors que le contexte
musal suppose la libert (Schouten,
1987). En Allemagne, on parle plutt
de pdagogie, qui se dit Pdagogik,
et lorsque lon parle de pdagogie
au sein des muses, on parle de
Museumspdagogik. Ceci concerne
toutes les activits qui peuvent tre
proposes au sein dun muse, indis-
tinctement de lge, de la formation,
de la provenance sociale du public
concern.
Z DRIVS : DUCATION MUSALE, DUCATION PER-
MANENTE, DUCATION INFORMELLE OU NON-FORMELLE,
DUCATION CONTINUE, DUCATION POPULAIRE, SCIENCES
DE LDUCATION, SERVICE DUCATIF.
) CORRLATS : APPRENTISSAGE, LEVER, ENSEIGNE-
MENT, VEIL, FORMATION, INSTRUCTION, PDAGOGIE,
ANDRAGOGIE, TRANSMISSION, DIDACTIQUE, ACTION
CULTURELLE, ANIMATION, MDIATION, DVELOPPEMENT.
THIQUE
n. f. (du grec thos : habitude, carac tre) qui-
val. angl. : ethics ; esp. : etica ; all. : Ethik ; it. :
etica ; port. : tica.
De manire gnrale, lthique est
une discipline philosophique traitant
de la dtermination des valeurs qui
vont guider la conduite humaine tant
publique que prive. Loin den tre
un simple synonyme, comme on le
croit actuellement, lthique soppose
33
 la morale, dans la mesure o le
choix des valeurs nest plus impos
par un ordre quelconque, mais libre-
ment choisi par le sujet agissant. La
distinction est essentielle quant ses
consquences pour le muse, dans la
mesure o il est une institution, cest-
-dire un phnomne conventionnel
et rvisable.
Lthique, au sein du muse, peut
tre dnie comme le processus de
discussion qui vise dterminer les
valeurs et les principes de base sur
lesquels sappuie le travail musal.
Cest lthique qui engendre la rdac-
tion des principes prsents dans les
codes de dontologie des muses,
dont celui de lICOM.
1. Lthique vise guider la
conduite du muse. Dans la vision
morale du monde, la ralit est sou-
mise un ordre qui dcide de la
place occupe par chacun. Cet ordre
constitue une perfection laquelle
chaque tre doit sefforcer de tendre
en remplissant bien sa fonction, ce
quon nomme vertu (Platon, Cicron,
etc.). A contrario, la vision thique
du monde sappuie sur la rfrence
un monde chaotique et dsor-
donn, livr au hasard et sans repres
stables. Face cette dsorganisation
universelle, chacun est seul juge
de ce qui lui convient (Nietzsche,
Deleuze), cest lui qui dcide pour
lui seul de ce qui est bon ou mauvais.
Entre ces deux positions radicales
que sont lordre moral et le dsordre
thique, une voie intermdiaire est
concevable dans la mesure o il est
possible que des hommes se mettent
34
daccord librement pour reconnatre
ensemble des valeurs communes
(comme le principe du respect de
la personne humaine), il sagit bien
encore dun point de vue thique
et cest lui qui, globalement, rgit la
dtermination des valeurs dans les
dmocraties modernes. Cette dis-
tinction fondamentale conditionne
encore aujourdhui le clivage entre
deux types de muses ou deux
modes de fonctionnement. Certains,
trs traditionnels, comme le sont cer-
tains muses de Beaux-arts, semblent
sinscrire dans un ordre prtabli :
les collections apparaissent comme
sacres et dnissent une conduite
modle de la part des diffrents
acteurs (conservateurs et visiteurs)
et un esprit de croisade dans lexcu-
tion des tches. En revanche, certains
autres muses, peut-tre plus attentifs
la vie concrte des hommes, ne se
considrent pas comme soumis des
valeurs absolues et les rexaminent
sans cesse. Il peut sagir de muses
plus en prise sur la vie concrte,
comme les muses danthropologie,
qui sefforcent dapprhender une
ralit ethnique souvent ottante, ou
des muses dits de socit , pour
qui les interrogations et les choix
concrets (politiques ou socitaux)
passent avant le culte des collections.
2. Si la distinction thique/morale
est particulirement claire en franais
et en espagnol, le terme, en anglais,
prte sans doute plus la confusion
(ethic se traduit par thique, mais
aussi par morale). Ainsi, le code
de dontologie de lICOM (2006)
(Cdigo de deontologa en espagnol)
est traduit par Code of ethics en
anglais. Cest cependant clairement
une vision prescriptive et normative
qui est exprime par le code (que lon
retrouve, de manire identique, dans
les codes de la Museums Association
(UK) ou de lAmerican Association of
Museums). Sa lecture, structure en
huit chapitres, prsente les mesures
de base permettant un dveloppe-
ment (suppos) harmonieux de linsti-
tution du muse au sein de la socit :
(1) Les muses assurent la protection,
la documentation et la promotion du
patrimoine naturel et culturel de
lhumanit (ressources institution-
nelles, physiques et nancires nces-
saires pour ouvrir un muse). (2) Les
muses qui dtiennent les collections
les conservent dans lintrt de la
socit et de son dveloppement
(question des acquisitions et ces-
sion de collections). (3) Les muses
dtiennent des tmoignages de pre-
mier ordre pour constituer et appro-
fondir les connaissances (dontologie
de la recherche ou de la collecte de
tmoignages). (4) Les muses contri-
buent la connaissance, la compr-
hension et la gestion du patrimoine
naturel et culturel (dontologie de
lexposition). (5) Les ressources
des muses offrent des possibilits
dautres ser vices et avantages publics
(question de lexpertise). (6) Les
muses travaillent en troite coopra-
tion avec les communauts do pro-
viennent les collections, ainsi quavec
les communauts quils servent
(restitution des biens culturels). (7)
Les muses oprent dans la lgalit
(respect du cadre juridique). (8) Les
muses oprent de manire profes-
sionnelle (conduite adquate du per-
sonnel et con its dintrt).
3. Le troisime impact du concept
dthique sur le muse rside dans
sa contribution la dnition de
la musologie comme thique du
musal. Dans cette perspective, la
musologie nest pas conue comme
une science en cours de construction
(Strnsk), car ltude de la naissance
et de lvolution du muse chappe
tant aux mthodes des sciences de
lhomme qu celles des sciences
de la nature, dans la mesure o le
muse est une institution mallable
et rformable. Il savre cependant
quen tant quoutil de la vie sociale,
le muse rclame que lon opre sans
cesse des choix pour dterminer
quoi on va le faire ser vir. Et prcis-
ment, le choix des ns auxquelles on
va soumettre ce faisceau de moyens
nest rien dautre quune thique.
En ce sens la musologie peut tre
dnie comme lthique musale,
car cest elle qui dcide ce que doit
tre un muse et les ns auxquelles il
doit tre soumis. Cest dans ce cadre
thique quil a t possible lICOM
dlaborer un code de dontologie
de la gestion des muses, la dontolo-
gie constituant lthique commune
une catgorie socioprofessionnelle et
lui ser vant de cadre para-juridique.
) CORRLATS : MORALE, VALEURS, FINS, DON-
TOLOGIE.
35
 EXPO SI TION
n. f. (du latin expositio : expos, explication)
quival. angl. : exhibition ; esp. : exposicin ;
all. : Austellung ; it : esposizione, mostra ; port. :
exposio, exhibio.
Le terme exposition signie aussi
bien le rsultat de laction dexposer
que lensemble de ce qui est expos et
le lieu o lon expose. Partons dune
dnition de lexposition emprun-
te lextrieur et non pas labore
par nos soins. Ce terme comme sa
forme abrge lexpo dsigne la
fois lacte de prsentation au public
de choses, les objets exposs (les
expts) et le lieu dans lequel se passe
cette prsentation. (Davallon,
1986). Emprunt au latin expositio, le
terme (en vieux franais exposicun,
au dbut du xiie sicle) avait dabord
la fois au gur le sens dexplication,
dexpos, au propre le sens dexposi-
tion (dun enfant abandonn, accep-
tion toujours prsente en espagnol
du terme expsito) et le sens gnral
de prsentation. De l, au xvie sicle,
le sens de prsentation (de marchan-
dises), puis, au xviie sicle, la fois
le sens dabandon, de prsentation
initiale (pour expliquer une uvre)
et de situation (dun btiment). Et de
l le sens contemporain sappliquant
la fois la mise en espace pour le
public dexpts (choses exposes) de
natures varies et sous des formes
varies, ces expts eux-mmes et au
lieu dans lequel se passe cette mani-
festation. Dans cette perspective,
chacune de ces acceptions dnit des
ensembles quelque peu diffrents.
36
1. Lexposition, entendue comme
contenant ou comme le lieu o lon
expose (au mme titre que le muse
apparat comme la fonction mais
aussi comme le btiment), ne se
caractrise pas par larchitecture de
cet espace mais par le lieu lui-mme,
envisag de manire gnrale. Lexpo-
sition, si elle apparat comme lune
des caractristiques du muse, consti-
tue donc un champ nettement plus
vaste puisquelle peut tre monte
par une organisation lucrative (mar-
ch, magasin, galerie dart) ou non.
Elle peut tre organise dans un lieu
clos, mais aussi en plein air (un parc
ou une rue) ou in situ, cest--dire
sans dplacer les objets (dans le cas
des sites naturels, archologiques ou
historiques). Lespace dexposition,
dans cette perspective, se dnit alors
non seulement par son contenant et
son contenu, mais aussi par ses uti-
lisateurs visiteurs ou membres du
personnel , soit les personnes qui
entrent dans cet espace spcique et
participent lexprience globale des
autres visiteurs de lexposition. Le
lieu de lexposition se prsente alors
comme un lieu spcique dinter-
actions sociales, dont laction est
susceptible dtre value. Cest ce
dont tmoigne le dveloppement des
enqutes de visiteurs ou enqutes de
public, ainsi que la constitution dun
champ de recherche spcique li
la dimension communicationnelle
du lieu, mais galement lensemble
des interactions spciques au sein
du lieu, ou lensemble des reprsen-
tations que celui-ci peut voquer.
 2. En tant que rsultat de laction
dexposer, lexposition se prsente
de nos jours comme lune des fonc-
tions principales du muse qui, selon
la dernire d nition de lICOM,
acquiert, conserve, tudie, expose
et transmet le patrimoine matriel et
immatriel de lhumanit . Lexpo-
sition participe, au sein du modle
PRC (Reinwardt Academie), la
fonction plus gnrale de communi-
cation du muse, qui comprend ga-
lement les politiques dducation et
de publication. De ce point de vue,
lexposition apparat comme une
caractristique fondamentale du
muse, dans la mesure o celui-ci se
montre comme le lieu par excellence
de lapprhension sensible, notam-
ment par la mise en prsence, princi-
palement la vue (visualisation, mise
en montre, monstration, ostension),
dlments concrets permettant de
prsenter ces derniers, soit pour
eux-mmes (un tableau, une relique),
soit an dvoquer des concepts ou
constructions mentales (la transsub-
stantiation, lexotisme). Si le muse
a pu tre dni comme un lieu de
musalisation et de visualisation,
lexposition apparat alors comme
la visualisation explicative de faits
absents au moyen dobjets, ainsi que
de moyens de mise en scne, utili-
ss comme signes (Schrer, 2003).
Les artices que sont la vitrine ou la
cimaise, qui servent de sparateurs
entre le monde rel et le monde ima-
ginaire du muse, ne sont que des
marqueurs dobjectivit, qui servent
garantir la distance ( crer une dis-
tanciation, comme le disait Berthold
Brecht propos du thtre) et nous
signaler que nous sommes dans un
autre monde, un monde de lartice,
de limaginaire.
3. Lexposition, lorsquelle est
entendue comme lensemble des
choses exposes, comprend ainsi
aussi bien les musealia, objets de
muse ou vraies choses , que les
substituts (moulages, copies, photos,
etc.), le matriel expographique acces-
soire (les outils de prsentation,
comme les vitrines ou les cloisons de
sparation de lespace), et les outils
dinformation (les textes, les lms
ou les multimdias), ainsi que la
signalisation utilitaire. Lexposition,
dans cette perspective, fonctionne
comme un systme de communica-
tion particulier (McLuhan et Parker,
1969 ; Cameron, 1968) fond sur
des vraies choses et accompa-
gn dautres artefacts permettant de
mieux cerner la signication de ces
dernires. Dans ce contexte, chacun
des lments prsents au sein de
lexposition (objets de muse, sub-
stituts, textes, etc.) peut tre dni
comme un expt. Il ne saurait tre
question, dans un tel contexte, de
reconstituer la ralit, qui ne peut
tre transfre dans un muse (une
vraie chose , dans un muse,
est dj un substitut de la ralit et
une exposition ne peut quoffrir des
images analogiques de cette ralit),
mais de la communiquer travers
ce dispositif. Les expts au sein de
lexposition fonctionnent comme des
signes (smiologie), et lexposition
37
 se prsente comme un processus de
communication, la plupart du temps
unilatral, incomplet et interprtable
de manires souvent trs divergentes.
En ce sens, le terme dexposition se
distingue de celui de prsentation,
dans la mesure o le premier terme
correspond sinon un discours, plas-
tique ou didactique, du moins une
plus grande complexit de mise en
vue, tandis que le second se limite
un talage (par exemple dans un
march ou dans un grand magasin)
que lon pourrait qualier de passif,
mme si, dans un sens comme dans
lautre, la prsence dun spcialiste
(talagiste, scnographe, expographe)
savre ncessaire ds lors quun cer- visiteur-regardeur.
tain niveau de qualit est souhait.
Ces deux niveaux la prsentation
et lexposition permettent de prci-
ser les diffrences entre scnographie
et expographie. Dans la premire le
concepteur part de lespace et tend
utiliser les expts pour meubler cet
espace, tandis que dans la seconde
il part des expts et recherche le
meilleur mode dexpression, le
meilleur langage pour faire parler
ces expts. Ces diffrences dexpres-
sion ont pu varier au travers des dif-
frentes poques, selon les gots et
les modes, et selon limportance res-
pective que prennent les metteurs
en espace (dcorateurs, designers,
scnographes, expographes), mais
elles varient aussi selon les disci-
plines et le but recherch. Le champ
trs vaste que constituent ainsi les
rponses formules la question du
montrer et du communiquer
38
permet lesquisse dune histoire et
dune typologie des expositions,
que lon peut concevoir par tir des
mdias utiliss (objets, textes, images
mouvantes, environnements, outils
numriques ; expositions mono-
mdiatiques et multimdia-
tiques ), partir du caractre lucratif
ou non de lexposition (exposition de
recherche, blockbuster, exposition
spectacle, exposition commerciale),
partir de la conception gnrale
du musographe (expographie de
lobjet, de lide ou de point de vue),
etc. Et, dans toute cette gamme des
possibles, on rencontre une impli-
cation de plus en plus grande du
4. Le terme dexposition se dis-
tingue partiellement du terme dexhi-
bition dans la mesure o, en franais,
ce dernier a pris un sens pjoratif.
Vers 1760, le mme mot (exhibition)
pouvait tre utilis en franais et en
anglais pour dsigner une exposition
de peinture, mais le sens de ce mot
sest en quelque sorte dgrad, en
franais, pour dsigner des activits
tmoignant dun caractre nettement
ostentatoire (les exhibitions spor-
tives ), voire impudique, aux yeux
de la socit dans laquelle se droule
lexposition. Cest souvent dans
cette perspective que la critique des
expositions se fait la plus virulente,
lorsquelle rejette ce qui, daprs elle,
ne relve pas dune exposition et
par mtonymie, de lactivit dun
muse mais dun spectacle raco-
leur, au caractre commercial trop
afrm.
 5. Le dveloppement des nouvelles
technologies et celui de la cration
assiste par ordinateur ont popula-
ris la cration des muses sur Inter-
net et la ralisation dexpositions ne
pouvant se visiter que sur la toile ou
via des supports numriques. Plutt
que dutiliser le terme dexposition
virtuelle (dont la signication exacte
dsigne plutt une exposition en puis-
sance, cest--dire une rponse poten-
tielle la question du montrer ),
on prfrera les termes dexposition
numrique ou de cyber-exposition
pour voquer ces expositions particu-
lires qui se dploient sur Internet.
Celles-ci offrent des possibilits que
ne permettent pas toujours les expo-
sitions classiques dobjets matriels
(rassemblements dobjets, nouveaux
modes de prsentation, danalyse,
etc.). Si, pour linstant, elles sont
peine concurrentes de lexposition
avec de vraies choses dans les muses
classiques, il nest pas impossible que
leur dveloppement conditionne, en
revanche, les mthodes actuellement
employes au sein de ces muses.
Z DRIVS : EXPOSER, EXPOGRAPHE, EXPOGRAPHIE,
EXPOLOGIE, EXPT, DESIGN DEXPOSITION, CYBER-
EXPOSITION.
) CORRLATS : ACCROCHAGE, AFFICHER,
COMMISSAIRE DEXPOSITION, CHARG DE PROJET,
CATALOGUE DEXPOSITION, COMMUNICATION, CONCEPT
DEXPOSITION, DCORATEUR, DIORAMA, ESPACE, ESPACE
SOCIAL, TALER, EXPOSANT, EXPOSITION EN PLEIN AIR,
EXPOSITION IN SITU, EXPOSITION INTERNATIONALE,
EXPOSITION ITINRANTE, EXPOSITION AGRICOLE,
EXPOSITION COMMERCIALE, EXPOSITION NATIONALE,
EXPOSITION PERMANENTE (EXPOSITION DE LONGUE
DURE ET EXPOSITION DE COURTE DURE), EXPOSITION
TEMPORAIRE, EXPOSITION UNIVERSELLE, FOIRE, GALERIE,
INSTALLATION, MDIA, MESSAGE, MTAPHORE, MISE EN
ESPACE, MISE EN SCNE, MONTRER, MOYEN DE MISE
EN SCNE, OBJET DIDACTIQUE, OUTIL DE PRSENTATION,
PRSENTER, RALIT FICTIVE, RECONSTITUTION, SALLE
DEXPOSITION, SALON, SCNOGRAPHE, SCNOGRAPHIE,
VERNISSAGE, VISITEUR, VISUALISATION, RALIT, VITRINE,
DISPOSITIF, CIMAISE, MONSTRATION, DMONSTRATION,
PRSENTATION, REPRSENTATION.
39
 G
GES TION
n. f. (du latin gerere, se charger de, adminis-
trer) quival. angl. : management ; esp. :
gestin ; all. : Verwaltung, Administration ; it. :
gestione ; port. : gesto.
La gestion musale est dnie, actuel-
lement, comme laction dassurer la
direction des affaires administratives
du muse ou, plus gnralement,
lensemble des activits qui ne sont
pas directement lies aux spcicits
du muse (prser vation, recherche
et communication). En ce sens, la
gestion musale comprend essentiel-
lement les tches lies aux aspects
nanciers (comptabilit, contrle de
gestion, nances) et juridiques du
muse, aux travaux de scurit et de
maintenance, lorganisation du per-
sonnel, au marketing, mais aussi aux
processus stratgiques et de planica-
tion gnraux des activits du muse.
Le terme management, dorigine
anglo-saxonne mais utilis couram-
ment en franais, lui est similaire.
Les lignes directrices ou le style
de gestion traduisent une certaine
conception du muse et notam-
ment sa relation au ser vice public.
Traditionnellement, cest le terme
administration (du latin administratio,
ser vice, aide, maniement) qui a t
40
utilis pour dnir ce type dactivi-
ts du muse, mais aussi, de manire
plus globale, lensemble des activits
permettant le fonctionnement du
muse. Le trait de musologie de
George Brown Goode (1896) inti-
tul Museum Administration passe
ainsi en revue autant les aspects lis
ltude et la prsentation des col-
lections que la gestion quotidienne,
mais aussi la vision gnrale du muse
et son insertion au sein de la socit.
Lgitimement drive de la logique
de la fonction publique, laction
dadministrer signie, lorsque lobjet
dsigne un ser vice public ou priv, le
fait den assurer le fonctionnement,
tout en assumant limpulsion et le
contrle de lensemble de ses acti-
vits. La notion de ser vice (public)
voire, avec une nuance religieuse,
celle de sacerdoce, lui est troitement
associe.
On sait la connotation bureaucra-
tique du terme administration ,
ds lors quil est rapproch des
modes de (dys-)fonctionnement des
pouvoirs publics. Il nest ds lors pas
tonnant que lvolution gnrale
des thories conomiques du dernier
quart de sicle, privilgiant lcono-
mie de march, ait entran le recours
de plus en plus frquent au concept
de gestion, depuis longtemps utilis
au sein des organisations but lucra-
tif. Les notions de mise en march et
de marketing musal, de mme que
le dveloppement doutils pour les
muses issus dorganisations commer-
ciales (au niveau de la dnition des
stratgies, de la prise en compte des
publics/consommateurs, du dvelop-
pement de ressources, etc.) ont consi-
drablement transform le muse en
soi. Ainsi, certains des points les plus
conictuels en matire dorganisa-
tion de politique musale sont direc-
tement conditionns par lopposition,
au sein du muse, entre une certaine
logique de march et une logique
plus traditionnellement rgie par
les pouvoirs publics. En dcoulent
notamment le dveloppement de
nouvelles formes de nancements
(diversit des boutiques, location
de salles, partenariats nanciers) et
notamment les questions lies lins-
tauration dun droit dentre, au dve-
loppement dexpositions temporaires
populaires (blockbusters) ou la
vente de collections. De plus en plus
rgulirement, ces tches au dpart
auxiliaires ont une incidence relle
sur la conduite des autres tches du
muse, au point de se dvelopper,
parfois, au dtriment de ses activits
lies la prser vation, la recherche
voire la communication.
La spcicit de la gestion musale,
si elle sarticule entre les logiques
parfois antinomiques ou hybrides
lies dune part au march, dautre
part aux pouvoirs publics, tient par
ailleurs au fait quelle sarticule gale-
ment sur la logique du don (Mauss,
1923) tel quil circule au travers du
don dobjets, dargent ou de laction
bnvole ou de celle dune socit
damis de muse. Cette dernire
caractristique, rgulirement prise
en compte de manire implicite,
bncie cependant dune moindre
rexion sur ses implications en
matire de gestion de linstitution
moyen et long termes.
Z DRIVS : GESTIONNAIRE, GESTION DE COLLECTIONS.
) CORRLATS : MANAGEMENT, ADMINISTRATION,
BLOCKBUSTERS, MISSION STATEMENT, PROJET,
VALUATION, STRATGIE, PLANIFICATION, INDICATEURS DE
PERFORMANCE, DROIT DENTRE, LEVE DE FONDS, AMIS,
BNVOLAT, MARKETING MUSAL, MUSE PUBLIC/PRIV,
TRUSTEES, RESSOURCES HUMAINES, ORGANISATION
BUT NON-LUCRATIF, CONSEIL DADMINISTRATION.
41
 I
INS TI TUTION
n. f. (du latin institutio, convention, mise en
place, tablissement, disposition, arrange -
ment) quival. angl. : institution ; esp. : ins-
titucin ; all. : Institution ; it : istituzione ; port. :
instituio.
De manire gnrale, linstitution
dsigne une convention tablie
par un accord mutuel entre des
hommes, donc arbitraire mais aussi
historiquement dat. Les institutions
constituent le faisceau diversi des
solutions apportes par lHomme aux
problmes poss par les besoins natu-
rels vcus en socit (Malinowski,
1944). De manire plus spcique,
linstitution dsigne notamment
lorganisme public ou priv tabli
par la socit pour rpondre un
besoin dtermin. Le muse est une
institution, en ce sens quil est un
organisme rgi par un systme juri-
dique dtermin, de droit public ou
de droit priv (voir les termes Gestion
et Public). Quil repose en effet sur la
notion de domaine public ( partir
de la Rvolution franaise) ou celle
de public trust (dans le droit anglo-
saxon) montre, par-del les diver-
gences de conventions, un accord
mutuel et conventionnel entre les
hommes dune socit, soit une insti-
tution.
42
Ce terme, lorsquil est associ au
qualicatif gnral de musale
(dans le sens commun de relative
au muse ), est frquemment utilis
comme synonyme de muse , le
plus souvent pour viter de trop fr-
quentes rptitions. Le concept dins-
titution est cependant central en ce
qui touche la problmatique du
muse, dans laquelle il connat trois
acceptions prcises.
1. Il existe deux niveaux dinsti-
tutions, selon la nature du besoin
quelles viennent satisfaire. Ce besoin
peut tre soit biologique et premier
(besoin de manger, de se reproduire,
de dormir, etc.) soit second et rsul-
tant des exigences de la vie en socit
(besoin dorganisation, de dfense,
de sant, etc.). ces deux niveaux
rpondent deux types dinstitutions
ingalement contraignantes : le repas,
le mariage, lhbergement, dune
part, ltat, larme, lcole, lhpital,
dautre part. En tant que rponse
un besoin social (celui de la relation
sensible avec des objets), le muse
appartient la seconde catgorie.
2. LICOM dnit le muse comme
une institution permanente, au ser-
vice de la socit et de son dvelop-
pement. En ce sens, linstitution
constitue un ensemble de structures
cres par lHomme dans le champ du
musal (voir ce terme), et organises
an dentrer en relation sensible avec
des objets. Linstitution du muse,
cre et entretenue par la socit,
repose sur un ensemble de normes
et de rgles (mesures de conser va-
tion prventive, interdiction de tou-
cher aux objets ou dexposer des
substituts en les prsentant comme
des originaux), elles-mmes fondes
sur un systme de valeurs : la prser-
vation du patrimoine, lexposition
des chefs-duvre et des spcimens
uniques, la diffusion des connais-
sances scientiques modernes, etc.
Souligner le caractre institutionnel
du muse, cest donc aussi rafrmer
son rle normatif et lautorit quil
exerce sur la science ou les beaux-
arts, par exemple, ou lide quil
demeure au ser vice de la socit et
de son dveloppement .
3. Contrairement langlais qui ne
fait pas de distinction prcise (et, de
manire gnrale, lusage qui leur
est donn en Belgique ou au Canada)
les termes dinstitution et dtablis-
sement ne sont pas synonymes. Le
muse, comme institution, se dis-
tingue du muse conu comme ta-
blissement, lieu particulier, concret :
Ltablissement musal est une
forme concrte de linstitution
musale (Maroevic, 2007). On
notera que la contestation de lins-
titution, voire sa ngation pure et
simple (comme dans le cas du muse
imaginaire de Malraux ou du muse
ctif de lartiste Marcel Broodthaers),
nentrane pas du mme coup la sor-
tie du champ musal, dans la mesure
o celui-ci peut se concevoir hors du
cadre institutionnel (dans son accep-
tion stricte, lexpression de muse
virtuel , muse en puissance, rend
compte de ces expriences musales
en marge de la ralit institution-
nelle).
Cest pour cette raison que plu-
sieurs pays, notamment le Canada
et la Belgique, ont recours lexpres-
sion institution musale pour
distinguer un tablissement qui ne
prsente pas lensemble des caract-
ristiques dun muse classique. Par
institutions musales, on entend les
tablissements but non lucratif,
muses, centres dexposition et lieux
dinterprtation, qui, outre les fonc-
tions dacquisition, de conser vation,
de recherche et de gestion de collec-
tions assumes par certains, ont en
commun dtre des lieux dduca-
tion et de diffusion consacrs lart,
lhistoire et aux sciences (Obser-
vatoire de la culture et des communi-
cations du Qubec, 2004).
4. Enn, le terme institution
musale peut se dnir, au mme
titre que institution nancire
(le FMI ou la Banque mondiale),
comme lensemble (lorsquil est au
pluriel) des organismes nationaux ou
internationaux rgissant le fonction-
nement des muses, tels que lICOM
ou lancienne Direction des muses
de France.
Z DRIVS : INSTITUTIONNEL, INSTITUTION MUSALE.
) CORRLATS : TABLISSEMENT, DOMAINE PUBLIC,
PUBLIC TRUST, MUSE VIRTUEL.
43
 M
MDIATION
e
n. f. (V sicle, du latin mediatio : mdiation,
entremise) quival. angl. : mediation, inter-
pretation ; esp. : mediacin ; all. : Vermittlung ;
it : mediazione ; port. : mediao.
La mdiation dsigne laction visant
rconcilier ou mettre daccord
deux ou plusieurs parties et, dans le
cadre du muse, le public du muse
avec ce qui lui est donn voir ; syno-
nyme possible : intercession. tymo-
logiquement, nous retrouvons dans
mdiation la racine med signi-
ant milieu , racine qui se lit dans
plusieurs langues (langlais middle,
lespagnol medio, lallemand mitte),
et rappelle que la mdiation est lie
lide dune position mdiane,
celle dun tiers qui se place entre
deux ples distants et agit comme un
intermdiaire. Si cette posture carac-
trise bien les aspects juridiques de
la mdiation, o quelquun ngocie
an de rconcilier des adversaires et
de dgager un modus vivendi, cette
dimension marque aussi le sens que
prend cette notion dans le domaine
culturel et scientique de la muso-
logie. Ici aussi, la mdiation se place
dans un entre-deux, dans un espace
quelle cherchera rduire, en provo-
quant un rapprochement, voire une
relation dappropriation.
44
1. La notion de mdiation joue
sur plusieurs plans ; sur le plan phi-
losophique, elle a servi, pour Hegel
et ses disciples, dcrire le mouve-
ment mme de lhistoire. En effet,
la dialectique, moteur de lhistoire,
avance par mdiations successives :
une situation premire (la thse)
doit passer par la mdiation de son
contraire (lantithse) pour progres-
ser vers un nouvel tat (la synthse)
qui retient en lui quelque chose de
ces deux moments franchis qui lont
prcde.
Le concept gnral de mdiation
sert aussi penser linstitution mme
de la culture, en tant que transmis-
sion de ce fonds commun qui runit
les participants dune collectivit
et dans lequel ils se reconnaissent.
En ce sens, cest par la mdiation
de sa culture quun individu peroit
et comprend le monde et sa propre
identit : plusieurs parlent alors de
mdiation symbolique. Toujours
dans le champ culturel, la mdiation
inter vient pour analyser la mise en
public des ides et des produits
culturels leur prise en charge
mdiatique et dcrire leur circula-
tion dans lespace social global. La
sphre culturelle est vue comme une
nbuleuse dynamique o les produits
composent les uns avec les autres et
se relaient. Ici, la mdiation rci-
proque des uvres conduit lide
dintermdialit, de rapports entre
mdias et de traduction par laquelle
un mdia la tlvision ou le cinma
par exemple reprend les formes et
les productions dun autre mdia (un
roman adapt au cinma). Les cra-
tions atteignent les destinataires par
lun ou lautre de ces supports varis
constituant leur mdiatisation. Dans
cette perspective, lanalyse dmontre
les nombreuses mdiations mises en
action par des chanes complexes
dagents diffrents pour assurer la
prsence dun contenu dans la sphre
culturelle et sa diffusion de nom-
breux publics.
2. En musologie, le terme de
mdiation est, depuis plus dune
dcennie, frquemment utilis en
France et dans la francophonie euro-
penne, o lon parle de mdia-
tion culturelle , de mdiation
scientique et de mdiateur .
Il dsigne essentiellement toute une
gamme dinter ventions menes en
contexte musal an dtablir des
ponts entre ce qui est expos (le voir)
et les signications que ces objets et
sites peuvent revtir (le savoir). La
mdiation cherche quelquefois aussi
favoriser le partage des expriences
vcues entre visiteurs dans la socia-
bilit de la visite, et lmergence de
rfrences communes. Il sagit donc
dune stratgie de communication
caractre ducatif qui mobilise
autour des collections exposes des
technologies diverses, pour mettre
la porte des visiteurs des moyens de
mieux comprendre certaines dimen-
sions des collections et de partager
des appropriations.
Le terme touche donc des
notions musologiques voisines,
celles de communication et dani-
mation, et surtout celle dinterpr-
tation, trs prsente dans le monde
anglophone des muses et sites
nord-amricains, et qui recouvre en
bonne partie la notion de mdiation.
Comme la mdiation, linterprta-
tion suppose un cart, une distance
surmonter entre ce qui est imm-
diatement peru et les signications
sous-jacentes des phnomnes natu-
rels, culturels et historiques ; comme
les moyens de mdiation, linterpr-
tation se matrialise dans des inter-
ventions humaines (linterpersonnel)
et dans des supports qui sajoutent
la simple monstration (display) des
objets exposs pour en suggrer les
signications et limportance. Ne
dans le contexte des parcs naturels
amricains, la notion dinterprta-
tion sest ensuite tendue pour dsi-
gner le caractre hermneutique des
expriences de visite dans les muses
et sites ; aussi se dnit-elle comme
une rvlation et un dvoilement qui
mnent les visiteurs vers la compr-
hension, puis vers lapprciation et
enn vers la protection des patri-
moines quelle prend comme objet.
terme, la mdiation constitue
une notion centrale dans la perspec-
tive dune philosophie hermneu-
tique et rexive (Paul Ricur) :
elle joue un rle fondamental dans
45
 le projet de comprhension de soi de
chaque visiteur, comprhension que
le muse facilite. Cest en effet en
passant par la mdiation qua lieu la
rencontre avec des uvres produites
par les autres humains quune sub-
jectivit en arrive dvelopper une
conscience de soi et comprendre sa
propre aventure. Une telle approche
fait du muse, dtenteur de tmoins
et signes dhumanit, un des lieux
par excellence de cette mdiation
incontournable qui, en offrant un
contact avec le monde des uvres
de la culture, conduit chacun sur le
chemin dune plus grande compr-
hension de soi et de la ralit tout
entire.
Z DRIVS : MDIATEUR, MDIATISER, MDIATISATION.
) CORRLATS : VULGARISATION, INTERPRTATION,
DUCATION, ANIMATION, PUBLICS, EXPRIENCE DE VISITE.
MUSAL
n. m. et adj. (nologisme construit par conver-
sion en subs tantif dun adjec tif lui-mme
rcent) quival. angl. : museal ; esp. : museal ;
all. : Musealitt (n. f.), museal (adj.) ; it :
museale ; port. : museal.
Le mot a deux acceptions selon
quon le considre comme adjectif
ou comme substantif. (1) Ladjectif
musal sert qualier tout ce
qui est relatif au muse pour le dis-
tinguer dautres domaines (ex. : le
monde musal pour dsigner le
monde des muses). (2) Comme subs-
tantif, le musal dsigne le champ de
rfrence dans lequel se droulent
46
non seulement la cration, le dve-
loppement et le fonctionnement de
linstitution muse, mais aussi la
rexion sur ses fondements et ses
enjeux. Ce champ de rfrence se
caractrise par la spcicit de son
approche et dtermine un point de
vue sur la ralit (considrer une
chose sous langle musal, cest par
exemple se demander sil est possible
de la conser ver pour lexposer un
public). La musologie peut ainsi tre
dnie comme lensemble des tenta-
tives de thorisation ou de rexion
critique portant sur le champ musal,
ou encore comme lthique ou la phi-
losophie du musal.
1. On soulignera dabord limpor-
tance du genre masculin, car la
dnomination des diffrents champs
(auxquels appartient le champ
musal) se distingue, au moins en
franais, par larticle dni mascu-
lin prcdant un adjectif substanti
(ex. le politique, le religieux, le
social, sous-entendu le domaine poli-
tique, le domaine religieux, etc.), par
opposition aux pratiques empiriques
qui se rfrent le plus souvent un
substantif (on dira la religion, la vie
sociale, lconomie, etc.) mais qui
ont souvent recours au mme terme,
prcd cette fois de larticle d ni
fminin (comme la politique). En
loccurrence, le champ dexercice
du muse, en tant quil est compris
comme une relation spcique de
lhomme avec la ralit, sera dsign
en franais comme le musal.
2. Le musal dsigne une rela-
tion spcique avec la ralit
(Strnsk, 1987 ; Gregorov, 1980).
Il prend place notamment aux cts
du politique et au mme titre que lui,
comme le social, le religieux, le sco-
laire, le mdical, le dmographique,
lconomique, le biologique, etc. Il
sagit chaque fois dun plan ou dun
champ original sur ou dans lequel
vont se poser des problmes auxquels
rpondront des concepts. Ainsi un
mme phnomne pourra se trouver
au point de recoupement de plusieurs
plans ou, pour parler en termes dana-
lyse statistique multidimensionnelle,
il se projettera sur divers plans htro-
gnes. Par exemple, les OGM (orga-
nismes gntiquement modis)
seront simultanment un problme
technique (les biotechnologies), un
problme sanitaire (risques touchant
la biosphre), un problme poli-
tique (enjeux cologiques), etc., mais
aussi un problme musal : certains
muses de socit ont en effet dcid muse ne rclame aucune de ces apti-
dexposer les risques et les enjeux des
OGM.
3. Cette position du musal comme
champ thorique de rfrence ouvre
des perspectives considrables
dlargissement de la rexion, car
le muse institutionnel apparat
dsormais seulement comme une
illustration ou une exemplication
du champ (Strnsk). Ce qui a deux
consquences : (1) ce nest pas le
muse qui a suscit lapparition de
la musologie, mais la musologie
qui a fond proprement le muse
(rvolution copernicienne) ; (2) cela
permet de comprendre comme rele-
vant de la mme problmatique des
expriences qui chappent aux carac-
tres habituellement prts au muse
(collections, btiment, institution)
et de faire une place aux muses de
substituts, aux muses sans collec-
tions, aux muses hors les murs ,
aux villes-muses (Quatremre de
Quincy, 1796), aux comuses ou
encore aux cybermuses.
4. La spcicit du musal, cest--
dire ce qui fait son irrductibilit par
rapport aux champs voisins, consiste
en deux aspects. (1) La prsentation
sensible, pour distinguer le musal
du textuel gr par la bibliothque,
qui offre une documentation relaye
par le support de lcrit (principale-
ment limprim, le livre) et requiert
non seulement la connaissance dune
langue mais galement la matrise
de la lecture, ce qui procure une
exprience la fois plus abstraite
et plus thorique. En revanche, le
tudes, car la documentation quil
propose est principalement sensible,
cest--dire perceptible par la vue
et parfois par loue, plus rarement
pas les trois autres sens que sont le
toucher, le got et lodorat. Ce qui
fait quun analphabte ou mme
un jeune enfant pourront toujours
tirer quelque chose dune visite de
muse, alors quils seront incapables
dexploiter les ressources dune
bibliothque. Cela explique gale-
ment les expriences de visites adap-
tes aux aveugles ou aux malvoyants,
que lon exerce lutilisation de leurs
autres sens (oue et surtout toucher)
pour dcouvrir les aspects sensibles
47
 des expts. Un tableau ou une sculp-
ture sont dabord faits pour tre vus,
et la rfrence au texte (la lecture du
cartel sil y en a) ne vient quensuite
et nest mme pas tout fait indispen-
sable. On parlera donc propos du
muse de fonction documentaire
sensible (Deloche, 2007). (2) La
mise en marge de la ralit, car le
muse se spcie en se sparant
(Lebensztejn, 1981). la diffrence
du champ politique qui permet de
thoriser la gestion de la vie concrte
des hommes en socit par la mdia-
tion dinstitutions telles que ltat, le
musal sert au contraire thoriser
la manire dont une institution cre,
par le biais de la sparation et de la
d-contextualisation, bref par la mise
en image, un espace de prsentation
sensible en marge de la ralit tout
entire (Sartre), ce qui est le propre
dune utopie, cest--dire dun espace
totalement imaginaire, certes symbo-
lique mais non ncessairement imma-
triel. Ce deuxime point caractrise
ce quon pourrait appeler la fonction
utopique du muse, car, pour pouvoir
transformer le monde, il faut dabord
tre capable de limaginer autrement,
donc de prendre une distance par rap-
port lui, voil pourquoi la ction de
lutopie nest pas ncessairement un
manque ou une dcience.
Z DRIVS : MUSALISATION, MUSALIT, MUSEALIA.
) CORRLATS : CHAMP, RELATION SPCIFIQUE, RA-
LIT, PRSENTATION SENSIBLE, APPRHENSION SENSIBLE,
MUSOLOGIE, MUSE.
48
MUSALISATION
n. f. quival. angl. : musealisation ; esp. :
musealisacin ; all. : Musealisierung ; it. :
musealizazione ; port. : musealisao.
Selon le sens commun, la musa-
lisation dsigne la mise au muse ou,
de manire plus gnrale, la trans-
formation en une sorte de muse
dun foyer de vie : centre dactivits
humaines ou site naturel. Le terme
de patrimonialisation dcrit sans
doute mieux ce principe qui repose
essentiellement sur lide de pr-
ser vation dun objet ou dun lieu,
mais ne porte pas sur lensemble du
processus musal. Le nologisme
musication traduit, quant
lui, lide pjorative de la ptri-
cation (ou de momication) dun
lieu vivant, qui peut rsulter dun
tel processus et que lon retrouve
dans de nombreuses critiques lies
la musalisation du monde .
Dun point de vue plus strictement
musologique, la musalisation est
lopration tendant extraire, phy-
siquement et conceptuellement,
une chose de son milieu naturel ou
culturel dorigine et lui donner un
statut musal, la transformer en
musealium ou musalie, objet de
muse , soit la faire entrer dans le
champ du musal.
Le processus de musalisation
ne consiste pas prendre un objet
pour le placer au sein de lenceinte
musale et de mme, comme le
rsume Zbynek Strnsk, un objet de
muse nest pas seulement un objet
dans un muse. travers le change-
ment de contexte et le processus de
slection, de thsaurisation et de pr-
sentation, sopre un changement du
statut de lobjet. Celui-ci, dobjet de
culte, dobjet utilitaire ou de dlec-
tation, danimal ou de vgtal, voire
de chose insufsamment dtermine
pour pouvoir tre conceptualise
comme objet, devient, lintrieur
du muse, tmoin matriel et immat-
riel de lhomme et de son environne-
ment, source dtude et dexposition,
acqurant ainsi une ralit culturelle
spcique.
Cest le constat de ce changement
de nature qui conduit Strnsk, en
1970, proposer le terme de musealia
pour dsigner les choses ayant subi
lopration de musalisation et pou-
vant ainsi prtendre au statut dobjets
de muse. Le terme a t traduit en
franais par musalie (voir Objet).
La musalisation commence par
une tape de sparation (Malraux,
1951) ou de suspension (Dotte,
1986) : des objets ou des choses
(vraies choses) sont spars de leur
contexte dorigine pour tre tudis
comme documents reprsentatifs
de la ralit quils constituaient. Un
objet de muse nest plus un objet
destin tre utilis ou chang tant la ralit, mais qui ne constitue
mais est amen livrer un tmoi-
gnage authentique sur la ralit. Cet
arrachement (Desvalles, 1998) la
ralit constitue dj une premire crire dans une tradition reposant
forme de substitution. Une chose
spare du contexte dans lequel elle
a t prleve ne constitue dj plus sciences modernes. Lobjet porteur
quun substitut de cette ralit dont
elle est cense tmoigner. Ce trans-
fert, par la sparation quil opre
avec le milieu dorigine, amne for-
cment une perte dinformations,
qui se vrie peut-tre de la manire
la plus explicite lors de fouilles clan-
destines, lorsque le contexte dans
lequel les objets ont t exhums est
totalement vacu. Cest pour cette
raison que la musalisation, comme
processus scientique, comprend
ncessairement lensemble des acti-
vits du muse : un travail de pr-
ser vation (slection, acquisition,
gestion, conser vation), de recherche
(dont le catalogage) et de communi-
cation (par le biais de lexposition,
de publications, etc.) ou, selon un
autre point de vue, des activits lis
la slection, la thsaurisation, et la
prsentation de ce qui est devenu des
musealia. Le travail de musalisation
ne conduit, tout au plus, qu donner
une image qui nest quun substitut
de la ralit partir de laquelle les
objets ont t slectionns. Ce sub-
stitut complexe, ou modle de la
ralit construit au sein du muse,
constitue la musalit, soit une valeur
spcique se dgageant des choses
musalises. La musalisation pro-
duit de la musalit, valeur documen-
en aucun cas la ralit elle-mme.
La musalisation dpasse la seule
logique de la collection pour sins-
essentiellement sur une dmarche
rationnelle lie linvention des
dinformation ou lobjet-document,
musalis, sinscrit au cur de
49
 lactivit scientique du muse telle
quelle sest dveloppe partir de
la Renaissance, activit qui vise
explorer la ralit au moyen de la
perception sensible, par lexprience
et ltude de ses fragments. Cette
perspective scientique conditionne
ltude objective et rpte de la
chose, conceptualise en objet, par-
del laura qui en voile la signica-
tion. Non pas contempler mais voir :
le muse scientique ne prsente
pas seulement de beaux objets mais
invite en comprendre le sens. Lacte
de musalisation dtourne le muse
de la perspective du temple pour
linscrire dans un processus qui le
rapproche du laboratoire.
) CORRLATS : MUSALIT, MUSEALIA, OBJET DE
MUSE, OBJET-DOCUMENT, PRSENTATION, PRSERVA-
TION, RECHERCHE, RELIQUE, COMMUNICATION, SLEC-
TION, SUSPENSION, SPARATION, THSAURISATION.
MUSE
n. m. (du grec mouseion, temple des muses).
quival. angl. : museum ; esp. : museo ; all. :
Museum ; it. : museo ; port. : museu.
Le terme muse peut dsigner
aussi bien linstitution que ltablisse-
ment ou le lieu gnralement conu
pour procder la slection, ltude
et la prsentation de tmoins mat-
riels et immatriels de lHomme et
de son environnement. La forme et
les fonctions du muse ont sensible-
ment vari au cours des sicles. Leur
contenu sest diversi, de mme que
leur mission, leur mode de fonction-
nement ou leur administration.
50
1. La plupart des pays ont tabli,
au travers de textes lgislatifs ou par
le biais de leurs organisations natio-
nales, des dnitions du muse. La
dnition professionnelle du muse
la plus rpandue reste ce jour celle
qui est donne depuis 2007 dans
les statuts du Conseil international
des muses (ICOM) : le muse est
une institution permanente sans but
lucratif, au ser vice de la socit et
de son dveloppement, ouverte au
public, qui acquiert, conserve, tu-
die, expose et transmet le patrimoine
matriel et immatriel de lhumanit
et de son environnement des ns
dtudes, dducation et de dlec-
tation . Cette dnition remplace
donc celle qui a servi de rfrence au
mme conseil durant plus de trente
ans : le muse est une institution
permanente, sans but lucratif, au
ser vice de la socit et de son dve-
loppement, ouverte au public et qui
fait des recherches concernant les
tmoins matriels de lhomme et de
son environnement, acquiert ceux-
l, les conserve, les communique
et notamment les expose des ns
dtudes, dducation et de dlecta-
tion (Statuts de 1974).
Les diffrences entre les deux d-
nitions, a priori peu signicatives
une rfrence ajoute au patrimoine
immatriel et quelques changements
de structure , tmoignent pourtant
dune part de la prpondrance de la
logique anglo-amricaine au sein de
lICOM, dautre part dun rle moins
important accord la recherche au
sein de linstitution. La dnition
de 1974 a fait, ds lorigine, lobjet
dune traduction assez libre, en
anglais, retant mieux la logique
anglo-amricaine des fonctions du
muse dont celle de transmission
du patrimoine. La langue de travail
la plus rpandue de lICOM dans ses
conseils, comme celle de la plupart
des organisations internationales,
est devenue langlais, et il semble
que ce soit sur base de cette traduc-
tion anglaise que les travaux visant
la conception dune nouvelle dni-
tion se sont drouls. La structure
particulire de la dnition franaise
de 1974 mettait en valeur la fonction
de recherche, prsente en quelque
sorte comme le principe moteur de
linstitution. Ce principe (modi
par le verbe tudier ) a t rel- tre non-lucratif du muse : un muse
gu, en 2007, parmi les fonctions
gnrales du muse.
2. Pour de nombreux musologues,
et notamment un certain nombre
se rclamant de la musologie ensei-
gne dans les annes 1960-1990 par
lcole tchque (Brno et lInterna-
tional summer school of Museology),
le muse ne constitue quun moyen
parmi dautres tmoignant dun
rapport spcique de lHomme
la ralit , ce rapport tant dter- lieu o des choses et les valeurs qui
min par la collection et la conser-
vation, consciente et systmatique,
et [] lutilisation scientique,
culturelle et ducative dobjets inani-
ms, matriels, mobiles (surtout tri-
dimensionnels) qui documentent le
dveloppement de la nature et de la
socit (Gregorov, 1980). Avant
que le muse ne soit dni comme
tel, au XVIIIe sicle, selon un concept
emprunt lAntiquit grecque et
sa rsurgence durant la Renaissance
occidentale, il existait dans toute civi-
lisation un certain nombre de lieux,
dinstitutions et dtablissements
se rapprochant plus ou moins direc-
tement de ce que nous englobons
actuellement sous ce vocable. La
dnition de lICOM est analyse,
dans ce sens, comme forcment mar-
que par son poque et son contexte
occidental, mais aussi comme tant
trop normative, puisque son but est
essentiellement corporatiste. Une
dnition scientique du muse
doit, en ce sens, se dgager dun cer-
tain nombre dlments apports par
lICOM, tels que par exemple le carac-
lucratif (comme le muse Grvin
Paris) demeure un muse, mme
sil nest pas reconnu par lICOM.
On peut ainsi dnir, de manire
plus large et plus objective, le muse
comme une institution musale per-
manente qui prserve des collections
de documents corporels et produit
de la connaissance partir de ceux-
ci (van Mensch, 1992). Schrer d-
nit quant lui le muse comme un
sy attachent sont sauvegardes et tu-
dies, ainsi que communiques en
tant que signes pour interprter des
faits absents (Schrer, 2007) ou, de
manire premire vue tautologique,
le lieu o se ralise la musalisation.
De manire plus large encore, le
muse peut tre apprhend comme
un lieu de mmoire (Nora, 1984 ;
51
 Pinna, 2003), un phnomne
(Scheiner, 2007), englobant des ins-
titutions, des lieux divers ou des ter-
ritoires, des expriences, voire des
espaces immatriels.
3. Dans cette mme perspective
dpassant le caractre limit du
muse traditionnel, le muse est
dni comme un outil ou une fonc-
tion conue par lHomme dans une
perspective darchivage, de compr-
hension et de transmission. On peut
ainsi, la suite de Judith Spielbauer
(1987), concevoir le muse comme
un instrument destin favoriser
la perception de linterdpendance
de lHomme avec les mondes natu-
rel, social et esthtique, en offrant
information et exprience, et en
facilitant la comprhension de soi
grce ce plus large contexte .
Le muse peut aussi se prsenter
comme une fonction spcique,
qui peut prendre ou non la gure
dune institution, dont lobjectif est
dassurer, par lexprience sensible,
larchivage et la transmission de la
culture entendue comme lensemble
des acquisitions qui font dun tre
gntiquement humain un homme
(Deloche, 2007). Ces dernires d-
nitions englobent aussi bien ces
muses que lon appelle impropre-
ment virtuels (et notamment ceux
qui se prsentent sur support papier,
sur cdroms ou sur Internet) que
les muses institutionnels plus clas-
siques, incluant mme les muses
antiques, qui taient plus des coles
philosophiques que des collections
au sens habituel du terme.
52
4. Cette dernire acception ren-
voie, notamment, aux principes de
lcomuse dans sa conception ini-
tiale, soit une institution musale
qui associe, au dveloppement dune
communaut, la conservation, la pr-
sentation et lexplication dun patri-
moine naturel et culturel dtenu par
cette mme communaut, reprsen-
tatif dun milieu de vie et de travail,
sur un territoire donn, ainsi que la
recherche qui y est attache. Lco-
muse, [] sur un territoire donn,
exprime les relations entre lhomme
et la nature travers le temps et
travers lespace de ce territoire ;
il se compose de biens, dintrts
scientique et culturel reconnus,
reprsentatifs du patrimoine de la
communaut quil sert : biens immo-
biliers non btis, espaces naturels sau-
vages, espaces naturels humaniss ;
biens immobiliers btis ; biens mobi-
liers ; biens fongibles. Il comprend
un chef-lieu, sige de ses structures
majeures : accueil, recherche, conser-
vation, prsentation, action cultu-
relle, administration, notamment :
un ou des laboratoires de terrain, des
organes de conser vation, des salles
de runion, un atelier socioculturel,
un hbergement, etc. des parcours et
des stations, pour lobser vation du ter-
ritoire concern ; diffrents lments
architecturaux, archologiques, go-
logiques, etc. signals et expliqus
(Rivire, 1978).
5. Avec le dveloppement de lordi-
nateur et des mondes numriques
sest aussi progressivement impose
la notion de cybermuse, souvent
appels improprement virtuels ,
notion dnie de manire gnrale
comme une collection dobjets
numriss articule logiquement et
compose de divers supports qui,
par sa connectivit et son caractre
multi-accs, permet de transcender
les modes traditionnels de commu-
nication et dinteraction avec le visi-
teur [] ; il ne dispose pas de lieu
ni despace rel, ses objets, ainsi que
les informations connexes, pouvant
tre diffuss aux quatre coins du
monde (Schweibenz, 1998). Cette
dnition, probablement drive
de la notion relativement rcente de
mmoire virtuelle des ordinateurs,
apparat dune certaine manire
comme un contresens. Il convient de
rappeler que virtuel ne soppose
pas rel , comme on a trop rapi-
dement tendance le croire mais
actuel . Un uf est un poulet
virtuel ; il est programm pour tre
poulet et devrait ltre si rien ne
soppose son dveloppement. En ce
sens, le muse virtuel peut tre conu
comme lensemble des muses conce-
vables, ou lensemble des solutions
concevables appliques aux probl-
matiques auxquelles rpond, notam-
ment, le muse classique. Ainsi,
le muse virtuel peut tre dni
comme un concept dsignant glo-
balement le champ problmatique
du musal, cest--dire les effets du
processus de dcontextualisation/
recontextualisation ; une collection
de substituts relve du muse virtuel
tout autant quune base de donnes
informatise ; cest le muse dans ses
thtres doprations extrieures
(Deloche, 2001). Le muse virtuel
constituant le faisceau des solutions
susceptibles dtre apportes au pro-
blme du muse, il inclut tout natu-
rellement le cybermuse, mais ne sy
rduit pas.
Z DRIVS : MUSE VIRTUEL.
) CORRLATS : CYBERMUSE, MUSAL,
MUSALISER, MUSALIT, MUSEALIA, MUSALISATION,
MUSIFICATION, RALIT, EXPOSITION, INSTITUTION,
COLLECTIONS PRIVES, MUSOLOGIE, NOUVELLE MUSO-
LOGIE, MUSOGRAPHIE, MUSOLOGUE, MUSOLOGIQUE.
MUSO GR A PHIE
n. f. (du latin museographia) quival. angl.
museography, museum practice ; esp. : museo-
grafa ; all. : Museographie ; it. : museografia ;
port. : museografia.
Le terme de musographie, qui a
fait son apparition ds le xviiie sicle
(Neickel, 1727), est plus ancien que
celui de musologie. Il connat trois
acceptions spciques.
1. Actuellement, la musographie
est essentiellement dnie comme
la gure pratique ou applique de la
musologie, cest--dire lensemble
des techniques dveloppes pour
remplir les fonctions musales et par-
ticulirement ce qui concerne lam-
nagement du muse, la conser vation,
la restauration, la scurit et lexposi-
tion. Le mot lui-mme a longtemps
t utilis en concurrence avec celui
de musologie, pour dsigner les acti-
vits, intellectuelles ou pratiques,
qui touchaient au muse. Le terme
est rgulirement employ dans le
53
 monde francophone, mais rarement
dans les pays anglo-amricains o
lexpression museum practice lui est
prfre. De nombreux musologues
de lEst ont utilis, quant eux, le
concept de musologie applique,
soit lapplication pratique des rsul-
tats obtenus par la musologie,
science en formation.
2. Lusage du mot musographie a
eu tendance, en franais, dsigner
lart (ou les techniques) de lexpo-
sition. Depuis quelques annes, le
terme dexpographie a t propos
pour dsigner les techniques lies
aux expositions, quelles se situent
dans un muse ou dans un espace
non musal. De manire plus gn-
rale, ce quon intitule le programme
musographique , recouvre la d ni-
tion des contenus de lexposition et
ses impratifs, ainsi que lensemble
des liens fonctionnels entre les
espaces dexposition et les autres
espaces du muse. Cet usage ne laisse
pas entendre que la musographie
ne se dnit que par ce seul aspect
visible du muse. Le musographe,
comme professionnel de muse, tient
compte des exigences du programme
scientique et de gestion des collec-
tions, et vise une prsentation ad-
quate des objets slectionns par le
conser vateur. Il connat les mthodes
de conser vation ou dinventaire des
objets de muse. Il scnarise les
contenus en proposant une mise en
discours incluant des mdiations
complmentaires susceptibles daider
la comprhension, et se soucie des
exigences des publics en mobilisant
54
des techniques de communication
adaptes la bonne rception des
messages. Son rle vise surtout
coordonner, souvent comme chef
ou charg de projet, lensemble des
comptences (scientiques et tech-
niques) uvrant au sein du muse,
les organiser, parfois les confronter
et les arbitrer. Dautres mtiers sp-
ciques ont t crs pour accomplir
ces tches : la gestion des uvres ou
des objets appartient aux rgisseurs
(registraire au Canada), le respon-
sable de la scurit sattache la ges-
tion de la sur veillance et aux tches
relevant de son secteur, le respon-
sable de la conser vation est un spcia-
liste de la conser vation prventive et
des mthodes de conser vation cura-
tive, voire de restauration, et cest
dans ce cadre et en interrelation que
le musographe sintresse particuli-
rement aux tches dexposition. La
musographie, en tout tat de cause,
se dmarque de la scnographie,
entendue comme lensemble des tech-
niques damnagement de lespace,
tout comme elle se dmarque de
larchitecture dintrieur. Il y a certes
de la scnographie et de larchitec-
ture dans la musographie, ce qui rap-
proche le muse dautres mthodes
de visualisation, mais dautres l-
ments lis la prise en compte du
public, lapprhension intellec-
tuelle et la prser vation du patri-
moine entrent galement en ligne de
compte, qui font du musographe
(ou de lexpographe) lintermdiaire
entre le conser vateur, larchitecte
et les publics. Sa place est toutefois
variable selon que ltablissement dis-
pose ou non dun conser vateur pour
produire le projet. Le dveloppement
du rle de certains acteurs au sein du
muse (architectes, artistes, commis-
saires, etc.) conduit cependant vers
un rquilibrage permanent de son
rle dintermdiaire.
3. Anciennement et par son tymo-
logie, la musographie dsignait la
description du contenu dun muse.
Au mme titre que la bibliographie
constitue toujours lune des tapes
fondamentales de la recherche scien-
tique, la musographie a t conue
pour faciliter la recherche des sources
documentaires dobjets an den
dvelopper ltude systmatique.
Cette acception qui a perdur tout
au long du XIXe sicle persiste encore
dans certaines langues, notamment
le russe.
Z DRIVS : MUSOGRAPHE, MUSOGRAPHIQUE.
) CORRLATS : ARCHITECTURE DINTRIEUR,
DESIGN DEXPOSITION, EXPOGRAPHIE, SCNOGRAPHIE,
FONCTIONS MUSALES, MISE EN ESPACE.
MUSO LO GIE
n. f. quival. angl. : museology, museum
studies ; esp. : museologa ; all. : Museologie,
Museumswissenschaft, Museumskunde ; it. :
museologia ; port. : museologia.
tymologiquement parlant la muso-
logie est ltude du muse et non
pas sa pratique, qui est renvoye la
musographie. Mais le terme, conrm
dans ce sens large au cours des annes
1950, et son driv musologique
surtout dans leur traduc3tion litt-
rale anglaise (museology et son driv
museological) ont trouv cinq accep-
tions bien distinctes.
1. La premire acception et la plus
rpandue selon le sens commun, vise
appliquer, trs largement, le terme
musologie tout ce qui touche
au muse et qui est gnralement
repris, dans ce dictionnaire, sous le
terme musal . On peut ainsi par-
ler des dpartements musologiques
dune bibliothque (la rserve pr-
cieuse ou le cabinet de numisma-
tique), de questions musologiques
(relatives au muse), etc. Cest sou-
vent cette acception qui est retenue
dans les pays anglophones et de
mme, par contamination, dans les
pays latino-amricains. Cest ainsi
que, l o nexiste pas de profession
spcique reconnue, comme en
France les conservateurs, les termes de
musologue sappliquent toute
la profession musale (par exemple
au Qubec), et en particulier aux
consultants qui ont pour tche dta-
blir un projet de muse ou de raliser
une exposition. Cette acception nest
pas privilgie ici.
2. La deuxime acception du
terme est gnralement utilise dans
une grande partie des rseaux univer-
sitaires occidentaux et se rapproche
du sens tymologique du terme
d tude du muse . Les dnitions
les plus couramment utilises se rap-
prochent toutes de celle qui fut pro-
pose par Georges Henri Rivire :
La musologie : une science appli-
que, la science du muse. Elle en
tudie lhistoire et le rle dans la
55
 socit, les formes spciques de
recherche et de conser vation phy-
sique, de prsentation, danimation
et de diffusion, dorganisation et
de fonctionnement, darchitecture
neuve ou musalise, les sites reus
ou choisis, la typologie, la dontolo-
gie (Rivire, 1981). La musologie
soppose, en quelque sorte, la muso-
graphie, qui dsigne lensemble des
pratiques lies la musologie. Les
milieux anglo-amricains, gnrale-
ment rticents face linvention de
nouvelles sciences , ont gnrale-
ment privilgi lexpression museum
studies, particulirement en Grande-
Bretagne, o le terme museology est
encore assez peu employ ce jour.
Il est indispensable de remarquer
que, de faon gnrale, si le terme a
t de plus en plus employ de par
le monde partir des annes 1950,
mesure que croissait lintrt pour
le muse, il continue ltre trs peu
par ceux qui vivent le muse au
quotidien et que lusage du terme
reste cantonn ceux qui observent
le muse de lextrieur. Cette accep-
tion, trs largement partage par les
professionnels, sest progressivement
impose partir des annes 1960
dans les pays latins, supplantant le
terme musographie.
3. partir des annes 1960, dans
les pays de lEst, la musologie a pro-
gressivement t considre comme
un vritable domaine scientique
dinvestigation du rel (une science
en formation) et comme une disci-
pline part entire. Cette perspective,
qui a largement inuenc lICOFOM
56
dans les annes 1980-1990, prsente
la musologie comme ltude dune
relation spcique entre lhomme et
la ralit, tude dont le muse, ph-
nomne dtermin dans le temps,
ne constitue que lune des matria-
lisations possibles. La musologie
est une discipline scientique ind-
pendante, spcique, dont lobjet
dtude est une attitude spcique
de lHomme la ralit, expression
des systmes mnmoniques, qui sest
concrtise sous diffrentes formes
musales tout au long de lhistoire.
La musologie a la nature dune
science sociale, ressortant des disci-
plines scientiques documentaires
et mnmoniques, et contribue la
comprhension de lhomme au sein
de la socit (Strnsk, 1980). Cette
approche particulire, volontiers criti-
que (la volont dimposer la muso-
logie comme science et de couvrir
tout le champ du patrimoine apparat
parfois comme prtentieuse plus
dun), nen reste pas moins fconde
quant aux questionnements quelle
suppose. Ainsi en va-t-il de lobjet
dtude de la musologie, qui ne peut
tre le muse, puisque celui-ci nest
quune cration relativement rcente
en regard de lhistoire de lhumanit.
Cest partir de ce constat qua pro-
gressivement t dni le concept
de relation spcique de lhomme
la ralit , parfois dsign comme
musalit (Waidacher, 1996). Ainsi,
on a pu dnir, dans le sillage de
lcole de Brno, prpondrante cet
gard, la musologie comme une
science qui examine le rapport sp-
cique de lhomme avec la ralit
et consiste dans la collection et la
conser vation, consciente et systma-
tique, et dans lutilisation scienti-
que, culturelle et ducative dobjets
inanims, matriels, mobiles (surtout
tridimensionnels) qui documentent
le dveloppement de la nature et de
la socit (Gregorov, 1980). Toute-
fois, lassimilation de la musologie
une science mme en cours de for-
mation a t progressivement aban-
donne, dans la mesure o, ni son
objet, ni ses mthodes ne rpondent
vraiment aux critres pistmolo-
giques dune approche scientique
spcique.
4. La nouvelle musologie, qui a lar-
gement inuenc la musologie dans
les annes 1980, regroupe un cer-
tain nombre de thoriciens franais
depuis le dbut des annes 1980, puis
internationaux partir de 1984. Se
rfrant un certain nombre de pr-
curseurs ayant publi, depuis 1970,
des textes novateurs, ce mouvement
de pense met laccent sur la vocation
sociale du muse et sur son caractre
interdisciplinaire, en mme temps
que sur ses modes dexpression et de
communication renouvels. Son int-
rt va surtout vers les nouveaux types
de muses conus en opposition au
modle classique et la position cen-
trale quoccupent les collections dans
ces derniers : il sagit des comuses,
des muses de socit, des centres de
culture scientique et technique et,
de manire gnrale, de la plupart
des nouvelles propositions visant
lutilisation du patrimoine en faveur
du dveloppement local. Le terme
anglais New Museology, apparu la
n des annes 1980 (Vergo, 1989), et
qui se prsente comme un discours
critique sur le rle social et politique
du muse, a apport une certaine
confusion la diffusion du vocable
franais (peu connu du public anglo-
saxon).
5. Enn, la musologie, selon une
cinquime acception qui est ici privil-
gie car elle englobe toutes les autres,
recouvre un champ trs vaste compre-
nant lensemble des tentatives de tho-
risation ou de rexion critique lies
au champ musal. Le commun dno-
minateur de ce champ pourrait, en
dautres termes, tre dsign par une
relation spcique entre lhomme et
la ralit caractrise comme la docu-
mentation du rel par lapprhension
sensible directe. Une telle dnition
ne rejette, a priori, aucune forme
de muses, en ce compris les plus
anciennes (Quiccheberg) comme
les plus rcentes (cybermuses),
puisquelle tend sintresser un
domaine volontairement ouvert
toute exprience sur le champ du
musal. Elle ne se restreint, en outre,
aucunement ceux qui revendiquent
le titre de musologue. Il convient
en effet de remarquer que si certains
protagonistes ont fait de ce champ
leur domaine de prdilection au
point de se prsenter eux-mmes
comme musologues, dautres, lis
leur discipline de rfrence et
nabordant que ponctuellement le
domaine du musal, prfrent gar-
der une certaine distance avec les
57
 musologues , tout en exerant
ou ayant exerc une inuence fonda-
mentale au sein du dveloppement
de ce champ dtudes (Bourdieu,
Baudrillard, Dagognet, Debray,
Foucault, Haskell, McLuhan, Nora
ou Pomian). Les lignes directrices
dune carte du champ musal peuvent
ainsi tre traces dans deux direc-
tions diffrentes, soit par rfrence
aux principales fonctions inhrentes
au champ (documentation, thsau-
risation, prsentation ou encore
prser vation, recherche, communi-
cation), soit en considrant les diff-
rentes disciplines qui lexplorent plus
ou moins ponctuellement.
58
Cest dans cette dernire perspec-
tive que Bernard Deloche a suggr
de dnir la musologie comme la
philosophie du musal. La muso-
logie est une philosophie du musal
investie de deux tches : (1) Elle sert
de mtathorie la science docu-
mentaire intuitive concrte ; (2) Elle
est aussi une thique rgulatrice de
toute institution charge de grer
la fonction documentaire intuitive
concrte (Deloche, 2001).
Z DRIVS : MUSOLOGIQUE ; MUSOLOGUE.
) CORRLATS : MUSE, MUSOGRAPHIE, NOUVELLE
MUSOLOGIE, MUSAL (MUSEAL), MUSALISER,
MUSIFIER (PJOR.), MUSALIT, MUSALISATION,
MUSEALIA, MUSALIE, OBJET DE MUSE, RALIT.
 O
OBJET [DE MUSE]
OU MUSALIE
n. m. (du latin objectum, jet en face) qui-
val. angl. : object ; esp. : objeto ; all. : Objekt,
Gegenstand ; ital. : oggetto ; port. : objecto,
(br. : objeto).
Ce terme est parfois remplac par
le nologisme musalie (peu uti-
lis) construit sur un modle latin :
musealia constituant alors un plu-
riel neutre, des musealia. quival.
angl. : musealia, museum object ;
esp. : musealia ; all. : Musealie,
Museumsobjekt ; it. : musealia ; port. :
musealia.
Dans son sens philosophique le
plus lmentaire, lobjet nest pas
une ralit en lui-mme, mais un
produit, un rsultat ou un corrlat.
En dautres termes, il dsigne ce qui
est pos ou jet en face (ob-jectum,
Gegen-stand) par un sujet, qui le
traite comme diffrent de lui, mme
lorsquil se prend lui-mme comme
objet. Cette distinction du sujet et
de lobjet est relativement tardive et
propre lOccident. ce titre, lobjet
diffre de la chose, qui entretient au
contraire avec le sujet un rapport de
contigut ou dustensilit (ex. loutil,
comme prolongement de la main, est
une chose et non un objet).
Un objet de muse est une chose
musalise, une chose pouvant tre
dnie comme toute espce de ra-
lit en gnral. Lexpression objet
de muse pourrait presque passer
pour un plonasme dans la mesure
o le muse est non seulement un
lieu destin abriter des objets mais
aussi un lieu dont la principale mis-
sion est de transformer les choses en
objets.
1. Lobjet nest en aucun cas une
ralit brute ou un simple donn
quil sufrait de recueillir, par
exemple pour constituer les collec-
tions dun muse, comme on ramasse
des coquillages sur une plage. Il est
un statut ontologique que va revtir,
dans certaines circonstances, telle
ou telle chose, tant entendu que
la mme chose, dans dautres cir-
constances, ne sera pas assimilable
un objet. La diffrence entre la chose
et lobjet consiste, dans les faits, en ce
que la chose est prise dans le concret
de la vie et que le rapport que nous
entretenons avec elle est un rapport
de sympathie ou de symbiose. Cest
ce que rvle notamment lanimisme
des socits souvent rputes primi-
tives, soit un rapport dustensilit,
comme cest le cas de loutil adapt
la forme de la main. Au contraire,
59
 lobjet est toujours ce que le sujet
pose en face de lui comme distinct de
lui, il est donc ce qui est en face
et diffrent. En ce sens, lobjet est
abstrait et mort, comme ferm sur
lui-mme, ce dont tmoigne notam-
ment cette srie dobjets quest la col-
lection (Baudrillard, 1968). Ce statut
de lobjet est considr aujourdhui
comme un pur produit occiden-
tal (Choay, 1968 ; Van Lier, 1969 ;
Adotevi, 1971), dans la mesure o
cest lOccident qui, en rompant avec
le mode de vie tribal, a pens pour la
premire fois le clivage du sujet et de
lobjet (Descartes, Kant et, plus tard,
McLuhan, 1969).
2. travers son travail dacquisi-
tion, de recherche, de prser vation
et de communication, il est donc
permis de prsenter le muse comme
lune des grandes instances de pro-
duction des objets, cest--dire
de conversion des choses qui nous
entourent en objets. Dans ces condi-
tions, lobjet de muse musealia
ou musalie na donc pas de ralit gnage, soit de la quantit dinforma-
intrinsque, mme si le muse nest
pas le seul instrument produire
des objets. En effet, dautres points
de vue sont objectivants , cest le
cas particulirement de la dmarche
scientique qui tablit des normes
de rfrences (ex. : les chelles de
mesure) totalement indpendantes
du sujet et qui, du mme coup, a de
la peine traiter le vivant en tant
que tel (Bergson) car elle tend le
transformer en objet, ce qui fait la
difcult de la physiologie par rap-
port lanatomie. Simplement, le
60
point de vue musal, mme sil est
parfois mis au ser vice de la dmarche
scientique, en diffre par son souci
premier dexposer les objets, cest-
-dire de les montrer concrtement
un public de visiteurs. Lobjet de
muse est fait pour tre montr, avec
tout le faisceau de connotations qui
sy trouvent implicitement associes,
car on peut montrer pour mouvoir,
pour distraire ou pour instruire.
Cette opration de monstration ,
pour utiliser un terme plus gn-
rique que celui dexposition, est tel-
lement essentielle que cest elle qui,
en crant la distance, fait de la chose
un objet, alors que dans la dmarche
scientique prime au contraire lexi-
gence de rendre compte des choses
dans un contexte universellement
intelligible.
3. Les naturalistes et les ethno-
logues, ainsi que les musologues,
slectionnent gnralement ce quils
intitulent dj comme des objets en
fonction de leur potentiel de tmoi-
tions (des marqueurs) quils peuvent
porter pour reter les cosystmes
ou les cultures dont ils souhaitent
conser ver la trace. Les musealia
(objets de muse) sont des objets
authentiques mobiles qui, comme
tmoins irrfutables, montrent les
dveloppements de la nature ou de
la socit (Schreiner, 1985). Cest
la richesse dinformations quils
portent alors qui a conduit des eth-
nologues comme Jean Gabus (1965)
ou Georges Henri Rivire (1989)
leur attribuer la qualication
dobjets-tmoins, quils conservent
lorsquils sont exposs. Georges
Henri Rivire a mme utilis lexpres-
sion dobjet-symbole pour dsigner
certains objets-tmoins, lourds de
contenu, qui pouvaient prtendre
rsumer toute une culture ou toute
une poque. La consquence de cette
objectivation systmatique des choses
permet de les tudier beaucoup
mieux que lorsquils restent dans
leur contexte dorigine (terrain ethno-
graphique, collection prive ou gale-
rie), mais elle peut aussi manifester
une tendance ftichiste : un masque
rituel, un vtement crmoniel, un
outil aratoire, etc., changent brusque-
ment de statut en entrant au muse.
Les artices que sont la vitrine ou la
cimaise, ser vant de sparateurs entre
le monde rel et le monde imaginaire
du muse, ne sont que des garants
dobjectivit qui servent garantir la
distance et nous signaler que ce qui
nous est prsent nappartient plus
la vie mais au monde clos des objets.
Par exemple, on na pas le droit de
sasseoir sur une chaise dans un muse
darts dcoratifs, ce qui prsuppose
la distinction conventionnelle entre
la chaise fonctionnelle et la chaise-
objet. Ils sont d-fonctionnaliss et
d-contextualiss , ce qui signie quelque chose dautre (Cameron,
que, dsormais, ils ne servent plus
ce quoi ils taient destins mais
entrent dans un ordre symbolique
qui leur confre une nouvelle signi-
cation (ce qui a conduit Krzysztof
Pomian appeler ces porteurs de
signication des smiophores) et
leur attribuer une nouvelle valeur
qui est dabord purement musale,
mais qui peut devenir conomique.
Ils deviennent ainsi des tmoins
(con-)sacrs de la culture.
4. Le monde de lexposition rete
de tels choix. Pour les smiologues,
comme Jean Davallon, Les musealia
sont moins considrer comme des
choses (du point de vue de leur ra-
lit physique) que comme des tres
de langage (ils sont dnis, reconnus
comme dignes dtre conser vs et
prsents) et des supports de pra-
tiques sociales (ils sont collects, cata-
logus, exposs, etc.) (Davallon,
1992). Les objets peuvent donc tre
utiliss comme des signes, au mme
titre que des mots dans un discours,
lorsquils sont utiliss dans une expo-
sition. Mais les objets ne sont pas non
plus que des signes, puisque par leur
seule prsence, ils peuvent tre direc-
tement perus par les sens. Cest
pour cette raison quest souvent uti-
lis, pour dsigner lobjet de muse
prsent partir de son pouvoir de
prsence authentique , le terme
anglo-saxon de real thing, traduit par
vraie chose, cest--dire des choses
que nous prsentons telles quelles
sont et non comme des modles, des
images ou des reprsentations de
1968), qui suppose, pour des raisons
varies (sentimentale, esthtique,
etc.), une relation intuitive avec ce qui
est expos. Le terme dexpt dsigne
les vraies choses exposes, mais aussi
tout lment exposable (un docu-
ment sonore, photographique ou
cinmatographique, un hologramme,
61
 une reproduction, une maquette, une
installation ou un modle concep-
tuel) (voir Exposition).
5. Une certaine tension oppose
la vraie chose et son substitut. Il
convient de remarquer, cet gard,
que pour daucuns lobjet smiophore
napparat comme porteur de signi-
cation que lorsquil se prsente
pour lui-mme, et non par le biais
dun substitut. Pour relativement
large quelle puisse paratre, cette
conception, purement riste, ne tient
compte ni des origines du muse
lors de la Renaissance (voir Muse),
ni de lvolution et de la diversit ment importante dans les muses de
laquelle est par venue la musologie
au XIXe sicle. Elle ne permet pas non
plus de prendre en compte le travail
dun certain nombre de muses dont
les activits sont essentiellement ras-
sembles, par exemple sur Internet
ou sur des supports dupliqus et, plus
gnralement, tous les muses faits de
substituts comme les gypsothques,
les collections de maquettes, les
crathques (muses conser vant des
reproductions en cire) ou les centres
de sciences (exposant surtout des
modles). En effet, ds lors que les
objets ont t considrs comme l- actuelles du muse. Dailleurs, dans
ments de langage, ils permettent de
construire des expositions-discours,
mais ils ne peuvent toujours sufre
tayer ce discours. Il faut donc imagi-
ner dautres lments de langage de
substitution. Aussi, lorsque la fonc-
tion et la nature de lexpt visent
remplacer une vraie chose ou objet
authentique, on attribue celui-ci
la qualit de substitut. Ce peut tre
62
une photographie, un dessin ou un
modle de la vraie chose. Le sub-
stitut serait ainsi cens sopposer
lobjet authentique , bien quil ne
se confonde pas totalement avec la
copie doriginal (comme les moulages
de sculptures ou les copies de pein-
tures), dans la mesure o il peut tre
cr directement, partir dides
ou de processus et pas seulement
par copie conforme. Selon la forme
de loriginal et selon lusage qui doit
en tre fait, il peut tre excut
deux ou trois dimensions. Cette
notion dauthenticit, particulire-
Beaux-arts (chefs duvres, copies et
faux), conditionne une grande part
des questions lies au statut et la
valeur des objets de muse. On notera
cependant quil existe des muses
dont les collections ne sont compo-
ses que de substituts et que, dune
manire gnrale, la politique des
substituts (copies, pltres ou cires,
maquettes ou supports numriques)
ouvre trs largement le champ dexer-
cice du muse et contribue ques-
tionner, du point de vue de lthique
musale, sur lensemble des valeurs
une perspective plus large, voque
plus haut, tout objet expos dans un
muse doit tre considr comme un
substitut de la ralit quil reprsente,
puisque, comme chose musalise,
lobjet de muse est un substitut de
cette chose (Deloche, 2001).
6. Dans le contexte musologique,
surtout dans les disciplines archo-
logiques et ethnographiques, les
spcialistes se sont habitus rev-
tir lobjet du sens quils imaginaient
partir de leurs propres enqutes.
Mais plusieurs problmes se posent.
Tout dabord, les objets changent
de sens dans leur milieu dorigine
au gr des gnrations. Ensuite,
chaque visiteur reste libre dinter-
prter ce quil regarde en fonction
de sa propre culture. Il en est rsult
un relativisme que Jacques Hainard
a rsum, en 1984, dans une phrase
devenue clbre : lobjet nest la
vrit de rien du tout. Poly fonction-
nel dabord, polysmique ensuite, il
ne prend de sens que mis dans un
contexte (Hainard, 1984).
) CORRLATS : ARTEFACT, AUTHENTICIT, CHOSE,
VRAIE CHOSE, EXPT, UVRE DART, SPCIMEN, OBJET
TRANSITIONNEL, OBJET FTICHE, OBJET TMOIN, COLLEC-
TION, REPRODUCTION, SUBSTITUT, COPIE, RELIQUE.
63
 P
PATRI MOINE
n. m. (du latin : patrimonium) quival. angl. :
heritage ; esp. : patrimonio ; all. : Natur- und
Kulturerbe ; ital. : patrimonio ; port. patrimnio.
La notion de patrimoine dsignait,
dans le droit romain, lensemble
des biens recueillis par succession :
biens qui descendent, suivant les
lois, des pres et mres aux enfants
ou biens de famille par opposition
aux acquts. Par analogie, deux
usages mtaphoriques sont ns plus
tardivement : (1) Assez rcemment
lexpression de patrimoine gn-
tique , pour dsigner les caractres
hrditaires dun tre vivant. (2) Plus
anciennement, la notion de patri-
moine culturel , qui semble appa-
ratre au xviie sicle (Leibniz, 1690)
avant dtre reprise par la Rvolution
franaise (Puthod de Maisonrouge,
1790 ; Boissy dAnglas, 1794). Le
terme connat cependant des usages
plus ou moins larges. Du fait de son
tymologie, le terme, et la notion
quil induit, a connu une expansion
plus grande dans le monde latin,
partir de 1930 (Desvalles, 1995),
que dans le monde anglo-saxon,
qui lui a longtemps prfr le terme
property (bien) avant dadopter, dans
les annes 1950, celui dheritage, en
64
le distinguant de legacy (hritage).
De mme ladministration italienne,
bien quelle ait t une des premires
connatre le terme patrimonio, a
longtemps continu utiliser lexpres-
sion beni culturali (biens culturels).
Lide de patrimoine est irrmdia-
blement lie celle de perte ou de
disparition potentielle ce fut le cas
partir de la Rvolution franaise
et, par l mme, la volont de
prser vation de ces biens. Le patri-
moine se reconnat au fait que sa
perte constitue un sacrice et que sa
conser vation suppose des sacrices
(Babelon et Chastel, 1980).
1. partir de la Rvolution fran-
aise et durant tout le XIXe sicle, le
patrimoine dsigne essentiellement
lensemble des biens immobiliers
et se confond gnralement avec la
notion de monuments historiques. Le
monument, dans son sens originel,
est une construction voue perp-
tuer le souvenir de quelquun ou de
quelque chose. Alos Riegl distingue
trois catgories de monuments : ceux
qui taient des monuments conus
dlibrment pour commmorer
un moment prcis ou un vnement
complexe du pass [monuments
intentionnels], ceux dont le choix
est dtermin par nos prfrences
subjectives [monuments histo-
riques], enn toutes les crations
de lhomme, indpendamment de
leur signication ou de leur desti-
nation originelles [monuments
anciens] (Riegl, 1903). Les deux
dernires catgories se dclineront,
essentiellement, selon les principes
de lhistoire, de lhistoire de lart et
de larchologie, sur le mode du patri-
moine immobilier. Jusqu une date
trs rcente, la Direction du patri-
moine, en France, dont lobjet essen-
tiel portait sur la prser vation des
monuments historiques, tait disso-
cie de celle des muses de France. Il
nest pas rare de rencontrer encore de
nos jours des partisans de cette dni-
tion pour le moins stricte. Mme lar-
gie au niveau mondial, sous lgide
de lUNESCO, cest dabord une
vision essentiellement fonde sur le
monument, les ensembles monumen-
taux et les sites qui est mise en valeur,
notamment au sein de lICOMOS,
pendant de lICOM pour les monu-
ments historiques. Ainsi, la Conven-
tion sur la protection du patrimoine
mondial culturel et naturel stipule
encore que : Aux ns de la prsente
Convention sont considrs comme
patrimoine culturel : les monu-
ments : uvres architecturales, de
sculpture ou de peinture monumen-
tales, [] les ensembles : groupes
de constructions isoles ou runies,
[] en raison de leur architecture,
[] les sites : uvres de lhomme ou
uvres conjugues de lhomme et de
la nature []. Aux ns de la prsente
Convention sont considrs comme
patrimoine naturel : les monu-
ments naturels [] les formations
gologiques et physiographiques []
les sites naturels ou les zones natu-
relles [] (UNESCO, 1972).
2. Depuis le milieu des annes 1950,
la notion de patrimoine sest consid-
rablement largie, de manire int-
grer, progressivement, lensemble
des tmoins matriels de lhomme
et de son environnement. Ainsi, le
patrimoine folklorique, le patrimoine
scientique, puis le patrimoine indus-
triel, ont progressivement t intgrs
la notion de patrimoine. La dnition
du patrimoine qubcois tmoigne
de cette tendance gnrale : Peut
tre considr comme patrimoine
tout objet ou ensemble, matriel ou
immatriel, reconnu et appropri col-
lectivement pour sa valeur de tmoi-
gnage et de mmoire historique et
mritant dtre protg, conserv et
mis en valeur (Arpin, 2000). Cette
notion renvoie lensemble de tous
les biens ou valeurs, naturels ou
crs par lHomme, matriels ou
immatriels, sans limite de temps ni
de lieu, quils soient simplement hri-
ts des ascendants et anctres des
gnrations antrieures ou runis et
conservs pour tre transmis aux des-
cendants des gnrations futures. Le
patrimoine est un bien public dont la
prservation doit tre assure par les
collectivits lorsque les particuliers
font dfaut. Laddition des spcici-
ts naturelles et culturelles de carac-
tre local contribue la conception
et la constitution dun patrimoine
de caractre universel. Le concept
65
 de patrimoine se distingue de celui
dhritage dans la mesure o lun et
lautre termes reposent sur des tem-
poralits sensiblement diffrentes :
alors que lhritage se dnit juste les groupes et, le cas chant, les indi-
aprs un dcs ou au moment de la
transmission intergnrationnelle,
le patrimoine dsigne lensemble
des biens hrits des ascendants ou
runis et conservs pour tre trans-
mis aux descendants. Dune certaine
manire, le patrimoine se dnit par
une ligne dhritages.
3. Depuis quelques annes, la
notion de patrimoine, essentielle-
ment dnie sur les bases dune
conception occidentale de la trans-
mission, a t largement affecte par
la mondialisation des ides, ce dont
tmoigne le principe relativement
rcent de patrimoine immatriel.
Cette notion, originaire des pays asia-
tiques (et notamment du Japon et de
la Core), se fonde sur lide que la
transmission, pour tre effective,
repose essentiellement sur linter-
vention humaine, do lide de tr-
sor humain vivant, une personne
passe matre dans la pratique de
musiques, de danses, de jeux, de mani-
festations thtrales et de rites ayant
une valeur artistique et historique
exceptionnelle dans leur pays, tels
que dnis dans la recommandation
sur la sauvegarde de la culture tradi-
tionnelle et populaire (UNESCO,
1993). Ce principe a trouv rcem-
ment un certain aboutissement au
niveau mondial. On entend par
patrimoine culturel immatriel les
pratiques, reprsentations, expres-
66
sions, connaissances et savoir-faire
ainsi que les instruments, objets,
artefacts et espaces culturels qui leur
sont associs que les communauts,
vidus reconnaissent comme faisant
partie de leur patrimoine culturel.
Ce patrimoine culturel immatriel,
transmis de gnration en gnra-
tion, est recr en permanence par les
communauts et groupes en fonction
de leur milieu, de leur interaction
avec la nature et de leur histoire, et
leur procure un sentiment didentit
et de continuit, contribuant ainsi
promouvoir le respect de la diversit
culturelle et la crativit humaine.
Aux ns de la prsente Conven-
tion, seul sera pris en considration
le patrimoine culturel immatriel
conforme aux instruments interna-
tionaux existants relatifs aux droits
de lhomme, ainsi qu lexigence du
respect mutuel entre communauts,
groupes et individus, et dun dvelop-
pement durable (UNESCO, 2003).
4. Le champ de plus en plus
complexe que constitue ainsi la
problmatique de la transmission
le patrimonial a induit, ces der-
nires annes, une rexion plus
prcise sur les mcanismes de
constitution et dextension du patri-
moine : la patrimonialisation. Au-
del de lapproche empirique, de
nombreuses recherches actuelles
tentent danalyser linstitution, la
fabrique du patrimoine, comme la
rsultante dinter ventions et de stra-
tgies concertes de marquage et de
signalisation (cadrage). Aussi lide
de patrimonialisation simpose-
t-elle pour comprendre le statut
social de ce qui est patrimoine, un
peu comme dautres avancent lide
dartication (Shapiro, 2004)
pour ce qui est des uvres dart. Le
patrimoine est le processus culturel,
ou le rsultat de celui-ci, qui se rap-
porte aux modes de production et
de ngociation lis lidentit cultu- (Choay, 1992). Il est dailleurs possible
relle, la mmoire collective et indi-
viduelle, et aux valeurs sociales et
culturelles (Smith, 2006). Ce qui
signie que si nous acceptons que
le patrimoine reprsente le rsultat
dun processus fond sur un certain
nombre de valeurs, cela implique que
ce sont bien ces valeurs qui fondent
le patrimoine. De telles valeurs
mritent dtre analyses, mais
aussi parfois contestes.
5. Linstitution du patrimoine
connat galement des dtracteurs,
ceux-ci sinterrogeant sur ses ori-
gines et sur la valorisation abusive
et ftichisante des supports de la
culture quil sous-tend, au nom des
valeurs de lhumanisme occidental.
Au sens strict, cest--dire au sens
anthropologique, notre hritage
culturel nest fait que de pratiques
et de savoir-faire trs modestes, et
rside davantage dans laptitude
fabriquer des outils et les utiliser
que dans ces outils mmes, surtout
lorsque ces derniers sont gs en
objets derrire une vitrine de muse.
On oublie dailleurs trop souvent
que loutil le plus labor et le plus
puissant que lhomme ait invent
est le concept, cet instrument du
dveloppement de la pense, au
demeurant assez difcile ranger
dans une vitrine. Le patrimoine
culturel compris comme la somme
des tmoins communs lhumanit
a donc fait lobjet dune critique fort
svre lui reprochant dtre un nou-
veau dogme dans une socit qui
avait perdu ses rfrences religieuses
dnumrer les tapes successives de
la formation de ce produit rcent :
rappropriation patrimoniale (Vicq
dAzyr, 1794), connotation spirituelle
(Hegel, 1807), connotation mystique
et dsintresse (Renan, 1882) et,
enn, humanisme (Malraux, 1947).
La notion de patrimoine culturel col-
lectif, qui ne fait que transposer dans
le champ moral le lexique juridico-
conomique, apparat ainsi pour le
moins suspecte et peut tre analyse
comme sapparentant ce que Marx
et Engels qualiaient didologie,
savoir un sous-produit du contexte
socio-conomique destin ser vir
des intrts particuliers. Linter-
nationalisation du concept de patri-
moine de lhumanit nest [] pas
seulement factice, mais dangereuse
dans la mesure o lon sur-imprime
un ensemble de connaissances et de
prjugs dont tous les critres sont
les expressions de valeurs labores
partir de donnes esthtiques,
morales, culturelles, bref de lidolo-
gie dune caste dans une socit dont
les structures sont irrductibles
celles du Tiers Monde en gnral et
de lAfrique en particulier (Adotevi,
1971). Il est dautant plus suspect
67
 quil coexiste avec le caractre priv
de la proprit conomique et semble
bien ser vir de lot de consolation pour
les dshrits.
Z DRIVS : PATRIMONOLOGIE, PATRIMONIALISATION.
) CORRLATS : BIEN CULTUREL, CHOSE, COMMU-
NAUT, CULTURE MATRIELLE, EXPT, HRITAGE,
HRITOLOGIE, IDENTIT, IMAGE, MMOIRE, MESSAGE,
MONUMENT, OBJET, RALIT, RELIQUE CULTURELLE,
SMIOPHORE, SUJET, TMOIN, TERRITOIRE, TRSOR NATIO-
NAL, TRSOR HUMAIN VIVANT, VALEUR.
PR SER VATION
n. f., quival. angl. : preservation ; esp. : pre-
servacin ; all. : Bewahrung, Erhaltung ; ital. :
preservazione ; port. : preservao.
Prser ver signie protger une chose
ou un ensemble de choses de dif-
frents dangers tels que la destruc-
tion, la dgradation, la dissociation
ou mme le vol ; cette protection est
assure notamment par le rassemble-
ment, linventaire, la mise labri, la
scurisation et la remise en tat.
En musologie, la prser vation ras-
semble lensemble des fonctions lies
lentre dun objet au muse, soit les
oprations dacquisition, dinscrip-
tion dans linventaire, de catalogage,
de mise en rserve, de conser vation,
parfois de restauration. La prser-
vation du patrimoine, de manire
gnrale, induit une politique qui
dbute par ltablissement dune pro-
cdure et de critres dacquisition du
patrimoine matriel et immatriel de
lhumanit et son environnement,
pour se poursuivre avec la gestion de
ces choses devenues objets de muse,
68
puis leur conser vation. En ce sens, le
concept de prser vation reprsente
lenjeu fondamental des muses, car
le dveloppement des collections
structure la mission du muse et son
dveloppement. Il constitue un axe
de laction musale avec lautre axe
qui est celui de la diffusion vers les
publics.
1. La politique dacquisition
constitue un lment fondamental
du mode de fonctionnement de la
plupart des muses. Lacquisition
conjugue lensemble des moyens par
lesquels un muse prend possession
du patrimoine matriel et immat-
riel de lhumanit : collecte, fouille
archologique, dons et legs, change,
achat, parfois selon des modes qui
ne sont pas sans rappeler le rapt ou
le pillage (combattus par lICOM
et lUNESCO Recommandation
de 1956 et Convention de 1970). La
gestion des collections et la rgie des
collections constituent lensemble des
oprations lies au traitement admi-
nistratif des objets de muse, savoir
leur inscription dans le catalogue ou
le registre dinventaire du muse, de
manire certier leur statut musal
ce qui, notamment dans certains
pays, leur octroie un statut juridique
particulier, du fait que les biens entrs
dans linventaire sont inalinables et
imprescriptibles. Dans quelques pays
comme les tats-Unis ou la Grande-
Bretagne, les muses peuvent excep-
tionnellement aliner des objets en
disposant de ceux-ci par le transfert
une autre institution musale, la
destruction ou la vente. La mise en
rserve et leur classement font gale-
ment partie des activits propres
la gestion des collections, de mme
que la super vision de lensemble
des dplacements des objets au sein
du muse ou en dehors de celui-ci.
Enn, les activits de conservation
ont pour objectif la mise en uvre
des moyens ncessaires pour garan-
tir ltat dun objet contre toute
forme daltration, an de le lguer Ces actions ne sont mises en uvre
le plus intact possible aux gnra-
tions futures. Ces activits, au sens
large, condensent les oprations de
scurit gnrale (protection contre niements passs. Elles se fondent sur
le vol et le vandalisme, lincendie ou
les inondations, les tremblements de
terres ou meutes), les dispositions
dites de conservation prventive,
soit lensemble des mesures et
actions ayant pour objectif dviter
et de minimiser les dtriorations
ou pertes venir. Elles sinscrivent
dans le contexte ou lenvironnement
dun bien culturel, mais plus souvent
dans ceux dun ensemble de biens,
quels que soient leur anciennet et
leur tat. Ces mesures et actions
sont indirectes elles ninterfrent
pas avec les matriaux et structures
des biens. Elles ne modient pas
leur apparence (ICOM-CC, 2008).
Par ailleurs, la conservation curative
est lensemble des actions directe-
ment entreprises sur un bien culturel
ou un groupe de biens ayant pour
objectif darrter un processus actif
de dtrioration ou de les renforcer
structurellement. Ces actions ne sont
mises en uvre que lorsque lexis-
tence mme des biens est menace,
relativement court terme, par leur
extrme fragilit ou la vitesse de
leur dtrioration. Ces actions modi-
ent parfois lapparence des biens
(ICOM-CC, 2008). La restauration
est lensemble des actions directe-
ment entreprises sur un bien cultu-
rel, singulier et en tat stable, ayant
pour objectif den amliorer lappr-
ciation, la comprhension et lusage.
que lorsque le bien a perdu une part
de sa signication ou de sa fonction
du fait de dtriorations ou de rema-
le respect des matriaux originaux.
Le plus souvent, de telles actions
modient lapparence du bien
(ICOM-CC, 2008). Pour conser ver
autant que possible lintgrit des
objets, les restaurateurs optent pour
des inter ventions rversibles et facile-
ment identiables.
2. Le concept de conservation
est souvent prfr celui de prser-
vation dans la pratique. Pour de nom-
breux professionnels de muse, la
conservation, qui concerne la fois
laction et lintention de protger un
bien culturel, quil soit matriel ou
immatriel, constitue le cur de lacti-
vit du muse, ce dont tmoigne le
vocable le plus ancien pour dnir en
France ou en Belgique la profession
musale, soit le corps des conserva-
teurs, apparu ds la Rvolution fran-
aise. Cest donc longtemps tout
au long du XIXe sicle, au moins ce
vocable qui semble avoir le mieux
caractris la fonction du muse.
Dailleurs, la dnition actuelle du
69
 muse par lICOM (2007) na pas
recours au terme de prservation pour
mettre en exergue les notions dacqui-
sition et de conservation. Sans doute,
dans cette perspective, la notion de
conservation doit-elle tre envisage
de manire plus vaste, comprenant
les questions dinventaire ou de
rserve. Il nen reste pas moins que
cette dernire conception se heurte
une ralit diffrente, savoir que la
conservation (par exemple au sein du
comit ICOM-CC) est bien plus clai-
rement lie aux activits de conserva-
tion et de restauration, telles quelles
ont t dcrites plus haut, qu celles
de gestion ou de rgie des collections.
Cest dans ce contexte que sest pro-
gressivement dvelopp un champ
professionnel distinct, celui des archi-
vistes et rgisseurs (ou registraires)
de collection. Le concept de prser-
vation sert rendre compte de cet
ensemble dactivits.
3. Le concept de prser vation, en
outre, tend objectiver les tensions
invitables qui existent entre chacune
de ces fonctions (sans compter celles
qui concernent la prser vation avec
la communication ou la recherche),
lesquelles ont souvent fait la cible de
nombreuses critiques : Lide de
conser vation du patrimoine renvoie
aux pulsions anales de toute socit
capitaliste (Baudrillard, 1968 ;
Deloche, 1985-1989). Dans cette
optique plus gnrale, un certain
nombre de politiques dacquisition,
par exemple, intgrent de manire
parallle les politiques dalination
du patrimoine (Neves, 2005). La
70
question des choix du restaurateur
et, de manire gnrale, des choix
effectuer au niveau des oprations de
conser vation (que conser ver et donc
que rejeter ?) constitue, avec lali-
nation, certaines des questions les
plus polmiques concernant lorgani-
sation du muse. Enn, les muses
acquirent et conservent de plus en
plus rgulirement des objets patri-
moniaux immatriels, ce qui pose de
nouveaux problmes et force trou-
ver des techniques de conser vation
qui sadaptent ces nouveaux patri-
moines.
) CORRLATS : ACQUISITION, BIEN(S), CHOSE,
COMMUNAUT, CONSERVATEUR, CONSERVATION
PRVENTIVE OU CURATIVE, INVENTAIRE, GESTION DES
COLLECTIONS, RGIE DES COLLECTIONS, RGISSEUR DES
COLLECTIONS, MATRIEL, IMMATRIEL, MONUMENT,
UVRE, DOCUMENT, OBJET, PATRIMOINE, RALIT,
RELIQUE, RESTAURATION, RESTAURATEUR, SMIOPHORE,
ALINATION (DEACCESSION), RESTITUTION, CESSION,
SAUVEGARDE, ENVIRONNEMENT (CONTRLE DE LENVI-
RONNEMENT).
PRO FES SION
n. f. quival. angl. : profession ; esp. :
profesin ; all. : Beruf ; ital. : professione ;
port. profisso.
La profession se dnit dabord
dans un cadre socialement dni,
et non par dfaut. En ce sens, elle
nest pas constitutive du champ tho-
rique : un musologue peut se carac-
triser dabord comme historien de
lart ou biologiste par profession,
mais il peut aussi se considrer et
tre socialement considr comme
musologue professionnel. Une pro-
fession, en outre, ncessite pour exis-
ter de se dnir comme telle, mais
aussi dtre reconnue comme telle
par autrui, ce qui nest pas toujours le
cas en ce qui concerne le monde des
muses. Il ny a pas une profession,
mais des professions musales plu-
rielles (Dub, 1994), cest--dire un
ensemble dactivits lies au muse,
rmunres ou non, permettant
didentier une personne (notam-
ment pour son tat civil) et la classer
dans une catgorie sociale.
Si lon se rfre la conception
de la musologie telle quelle est pr-
sente dans ces pages, la plupart des
agents travaillant dans les muses
sont loin davoir reu la formation
quelle implique, et bien peu peuvent
se prtendre musologues pour le
seul motif de leur prsence au muse.
Il existe pourtant, au sein du muse,
de nombreux pro ls requrant un
bagage spcique ; lICTOP (Comit
de la formation professionnel au sein
de lICOM) en a retenu une ving-
taine (Ruge, 2008).
1. Le cursus de nombreux acteurs,
parfois le plus grand nombre dentre
eux au sein de linstitution, nentre-
tient quun rapport relativement
superciel avec le principe mme
du muse alors que, pour le grand
public, ils le personnient. Ainsi en
va-t-il des agents de surveillance ou
gardiens, personnels attachs la sur-
veillance des espaces dexposition du
muse, qui forment ce titre le prin-
cipal contact avec le public, comme
les agents daccueil. La spcicit de
la sur veillance des muses (mesures
prcises de scurit, dvacuation
du public et des collections, etc.)
a impos progressivement, tout au
long du XIXe sicle, des catgories de
recrutement spciques, notamment
celle dun corps distinct du reste du
personnel administratif. Pendant le
mme temps, cest la gure du conser-
vateur qui est apparue comme la
premire profession spciquement
musale. Longtemps, le conser vateur
a t en charge de lensemble des
tches directement lies aux objets
de collection du muse, soit leur pr-
ser vation, la recherche et la communi-
cation par leur intermdiaire (modle
PRC, Reinwardt Academie). Sa forma-
tion est dabord lie lobjet dtude
des collections (histoire de lart, his-
toire, sciences de la nature, ethnolo-
gie, etc.), mme si, depuis quelques
annes, elle a pu saccompagner
dune formation plus musologique
comme celles que dispensent un
certain nombre duniversits. Beau-
coup de conser vateurs, spcialiss
dans ltude des collections qui
reste leur principal champ dactivit,
dailleurs incontest ne peuvent se
prsenter ni comme musologues,
ni comme musographes, mme si
certains conjuguent aisment, dans
la pratique, ces diffrents aspects du
travail musal. Faisant exception par
rapport aux autres pays europens,
en France, le corps des conser va-
teurs est gnralement recrut par
concours et bncie dune forma-
tion spcique (lInstitut national du
patrimoine).
2. Le terme de musologue peut
tre appliqu au chercheur dont
lobjet dtude porte sur une relation
71
 spcique entre lHomme et la ra-
lit, caractrise comme la documen-
tation du rel par lapprhension
sensible directe. Son champ dacti-
vit porte essentiel lement sur la tho-
rie et la rexion critique au sein
du champ musal, aussi peut-il tra-
vailler ailleurs que dans un muse,
par exemple dans une universit, ou
dans dautres centres de recherche.
Il est aussi uti lis, par extension
(notamment au Canada) pour dsi-
gner toute personne travaillant pour
un muse et assurant une fonction de
chef de projet ou de programmateur
dexposition. Le musologue se dif-
frencie donc du conser vateur, mais
aussi du musographe, charg de la
conception et de lorganisation gn-
rale du muse, des amnagements
touchant la scurit ou la conser-
vation et la restauration, en passant
par les salles dexpositions, quelles
soient permanentes ou temporaires.
Le musographe, par ses comp-
tences techniques, dtient une vision
experte sur lensemble des moda li-
ts de fonctionnement dun muse
prser vation, recherche et commu-
nication et peut grer notamment
(par exemple travers la rdaction
des cahiers des charges sy rfrant)
les donnes lies tant la conser va-
tion prventive, quaux informations
communiques aux divers publics.
Le musographe se diffrencie de
lexpographe, dont le terme a t pro-
pos pour dsigner celui qui a toutes
les comptences pour ra liser des
expositions, quelles se situent dans
un muse ou dans un espace non
72
musal, et aussi bien du scnographe
dexposition, (ou designer dexposi-
tion) dans la mesure o ce dernier,
uti lisant des techniques damna-
gement de lespace scnique, peut
se trouver ga lement apte conce-
voir des mises en exposition (voir
Musographie). Les professions
dexpographe et de scnographe
ont longtemps t apparentes
celle du dcorateur, qui renvoie
la dcoration des espaces. Mais
luvre de dcoration accomplie
dans les espaces fonctionnels et res-
sor tissant aux activits normales de
la dcoration intrieure diffre des
inter ventions faites dans les exposi-
tions qui relvent de lexpographie.
Dans les expositions, leur travail a
plutt tendance amnager lespace
en uti lisant les expts comme l-
ments de dcoration, que de par tir
des expts mettre en valeur et
faire signier en les inscrivant dans
lespace. De nombreux expographes
ou scnographes dexposition se
caractrisent ga lement, dabord,
comme des architectes ou des archi-
tectes dintrieur, ce qui ne revient
pas dire que tout architecte dint-
rieur peut prtendre, au sein du
muse, au statut dexpographe ou
de scnographe, et pas davantage
de musographe. Cest dans un tel
contexte que la tche du commissaire
dexposition (souvent joue par le
conser vateur, mais par fois aussi par
un personnel indpendant au muse)
prend tout son sens, puisque ce der-
nier conoit le projet scientique de
lexposition et assume la coordina-
tion de lensemble du projet.
 3. Le dveloppement du champ
musal aidant, un certain nombre
de professions ont progressivement
merg pour prendre leur autono-
mie, mais aussi afrmer leur impor-
tance et leur volont de participation
aux destines du muse. Cest essen-
tiellement dans les domaines de la
prser vation et de la communication
que lon peut obser ver ce phno-
mne. Concernant la prser vation,
cest dabord pour le restaurateur
en tant que professionnel dot des
comptencess cientiques,e ts urtout
des techniques requises pour le trai-
tement physique des objets de collec-
tion (leur restauration, mais aussi les
conser vations prventive et curative),
que sest impose la ncessit dune tin ser vir dinter mdiaire entre
formation hautement spcialise (par
types de matires et de techniques),
comptences dont ne dispose pas le
conser vateur. De mme, les tches
imposes par linventaire, celles qui
touchent la gestion des rserves,
mais aussi aux mouvements des
pices, ont favoris la cration relati-
vement rcente du poste de rgisseur
ou registraire, charg de la responsabi-
lit du mouvement des uvres, des
questions dassurance, de gestion des
rserves, mais aussi, parfois, de la pr-
paration et du montage dune expo-
sition (on parle alors de rgisseur
dexposition).
4. En ce qui concerne la commu-
nication, les personnels lis au ser-
vice pdagogique, de mme que
lensemble des personnels intres-
ss par la question des publics,
ont bnci de lmergence dun cation en vue de la ra lisation de
cer tain nombre de professions
spci ques. Sans doute lune des
plus anciennes de ces professions
est-elle constitue par la gure du
guide-interprte, guide-confrencier
ou confrencier, charg daccompa-
gner les visiteurs (le plus souvent en
groupes) dans les salles dexposition,
en leur dlivrant un cer tain nombre
dinfor mations lies au dispositif
dexposition et aux objets prsents,
essentiel lement selon le principe des
visites guides. ce premier type
daccompagnement, on a adjoint la
fonction danimateur, en charge des
ateliers ou des expriences relevant
du dispositif de commu nication du
muse, puis celle de mdiateur des-
les col lections et le public et dont le
propos vise davantage interprter
les col lections et amener le public
sy intresser qu linstruire syst-
matiquement selon un contenu pra-
lablement tabli. De plus en plus,
le responsable du site web joue un
rle fonda mental dans les tches de
commu nication et de mdiation du
muse.
5. ces diffrentes professions
sen sont ajoutes dautres, transver-
sales ou ancil laires, parmi lesquelles
gure le chef ou charg de projet (ce
peut tre un scientique, comme
ce peut tre un musographe), res-
ponsable de lensemble du disposi-
tif de mise en uvre des activits
musales, qui runit autour de lui
des spcia listes de la prser vation,
de la recherche et de la communi-
73
 projets spciques comme la ra li-
sation dune exposition temporaire,
lamnagement dune nouvelle salle,
dune rserve visitable, etc.
6. De manire plus gnrale, il
est fort probable que les administra-
teurs ou gestionnaires de muse, dj
rassembls en un comit au sein de
lICOM, veilleront mettre en valeur
les spcicits de leurs fonctions en
les distinguant des autres organisa-
tions, lucratives ou non. Il en va de
mme de nombreuses tches clas-
ses au niveau de ladministration,
comme la logistique, la scurit,
linformatique, le marketing, les
relations mdias, dont limportance
va en saccroissant. Les directeurs de
muses (runis en association, notam-
ment aux Etats-Unis) prsentent des
pro ls runissant lune ou plusieurs
des comptences voques. Symbole
de lautorit au sein du muse, leur
pro l (gestionnaire ou conser vateur,
par exemple) est souvent prsent
comme rvlateur des stratgies
daction du muse.
) CORRLATS : MUSOLOGIE, EXPOLOGIE,
CONSERVATEUR, DESIGNER DEXPOSITION, CHARG DE
PROJET, CONSERVATION, MUSOGRAPHIE, RESTAURATEUR,
EXPOGRAPHIE, GESTION, ARCHITECTE DINTRIEUR,
SCNOGRAPHE, AGENT DENTRETIEN, GUIDE, GUIDE-
INTERPRTE, CONFRENCIER, ANIMATEUR, MDIATEUR,
DUCATEUR, CHERCHEUR, VALUATEUR, COMMUNICA-
TEUR, TECHNOLOGUE, TECHNICIEN, BNVOLE, GARDIEN,
AGENT DE SURVEILLANCE.
PUBLIC
n. m. et adj. (du latin publicus, populus : peuple
ou population) quival. angl. : public, people,
74
audience ; esp. : pblico ; all. : Publikum, Besu-
cher ; it. : pubblico ; port. : pblico.
Le terme possde deux acceptions,
selon quil est employ comme adjec-
tif ou comme substantif.
1. Ladjectif public muse
public traduit la relation juridique
entre le muse et le peuple du terri-
toire sur lequel il se situe. Le muse
public est, en son essence, la pro-
prit du peuple ; il est nanc et
administr par celui-ci travers ses
reprsentants et, par dlgation, par
son administration. Cest surtout
dans les pays latins que cette logique
sexprime de la manire la plus forte :
le muse public est essentiellement
nanc par limpt, ses collections
participent de la logique du domaine
public (elles sont en principe impres-
criptibles et inalinables et ne
peuvent tre dclasses quen vertu
dune procdure trs stricte). Ses
rgles de fonctionnement relvent
des rgles gnrales des ser vices
publics, et notamment le principe
de continuit (le ser vice est tenu de
fonctionner de manire continue et
rgulire, sans autres interruptions
que celles qui sont prvues par le
rglement), le principe de mutabi-
lit (le ser vice doit sadapter lvo-
lution des besoins dintrt gnral
et aucun obstacle juridique ne doit
sopposer aux changements accom-
plir dans cette optique), le principe
dgalit (assurer lgalit des traite-
ments pour chaque citoyen), enn
le principe de transparence (commu-
nication de documents relatifs au
ser vice chaque particulier qui en
fait la demande, et motivation de cer-
taines dcisions), signient que lta-
blissement musal est ouvert tous
ou quil appartient tous, quil est au
ser vice de la socit et de son dve-
loppement.
Dans le droit anglo-amricain,
cest moins la notion de ser vice public
que celle de public trust (conance
publique) qui prvaut, et cest en
vertu de ces principes exigeant un
engagement trs strict de la part des
trustees que le muse, gnralement
organis de manire prive sous
le statut de non-prot organisation,
dorganisation but non lucratif,
dont le conseil dadministration est
le board of trustees destine ses acti-
vits un certain public. Le muse,
notamment aux tats-Unis, se rfre
moins la notion de public qu celle
de communaut, ce dernier terme
souvent pris dans un sens large (voir
Socit).
Ce principe conduit le muse, par-
tout dans le monde, voir son acti-
vit exerce, sinon sous lgide des
pouvoirs publics, du moins toujours
en sy rfrant, et tre la plupart du
temps (partiellement) pris en charge
par ceux-ci, ce qui lamne respec-
ter un certain nombre de rgles dont
dcoule son administration ainsi
quun certain nombre de principes
thiques. Dans ce contexte, la ques-
tion du muse priv et, a fortiori,
celle du muse gr comme une entre-
prise commerciale, laissent supposer
que les diffrents principes lis la
domanialit publique et aux caract-
ristiques des pouvoirs publics, cits
plus haut, pourraient ne pas tre
rencontrs. Cest dans cette perspec-
tive que la dnition du muse par
lICOM prsuppose quil sagit dune
organisation but non lucratif, et
que de nombreux articles du code de
dontologie ont t rdigs en fonc-
tion de son caractre public.
2. Comme substantif, le mot
public dsigne lensemble des
utilisateurs du muse (le public des
muses), mais aussi, par extrapolation
partir de sa destination publique,
lensemble de la population laquelle
chaque tablissement sadresse. Pr-
sente dans presque toutes les dni-
tions actuelles du muse, la notion de
public occupe une place centrale au
sein du muse : institution [] au
service de la socit et de son dvelop-
pement, ouverte au public (ICOM,
2007). Cest aussi une collection
[] dont la conservation et la pr-
sentation revtent un intrt public
en vue de la connaissance, de ldu-
cation et du plaisir du public (Loi
sur les muses de France, 2002), ou
encore une institution [] qui pos-
sde et utilise des objets matriels, les
conserve et les expose au public selon
des horaires rguliers (American
Association of Museums, accreditation
program, 1973) ; la dnition publie
en 1998 par la Museums Association,
au Royaume-Uni, a quant elle rem-
plac ladjectif public par le subs-
tantif people.
La notion mme de public asso-
cie troitement lactivit du muse
ses utilisateurs, voire ceux qui
sont censs en bncier mme en
75
 ne recourant pas ses ser vices. Par
utilisateurs, ce sont bien sr les visi-
teurs le grand public auxquels
on pense en premier lieu, oubliant
quils nont pas toujours jou le rle
central que le muse leur reconnat
actuellement, du fait quil existe un
grand nombre de publics spciques.
Lieu de formation artistique et terri-
toire de la rpublique des savants
lorigine, le muse ne sest ouvert
tous que progressivement au l de
son histoire. Cette ouverture, qui
a conduit le personnel du muse
sintresser de plus en plus tous ses
visiteurs mais galement la popula-
tion qui ne frquente pas les muses,
a favoris la multiplication des axes
de lecture de lensemble de ces utili-
sateurs, dont rendent compte les nou-
velles appellations au l du temps :
peuple, grand public, gros public,
non-public, publics loign, empch
ou fragilis, utilisateurs ou usagers,
visiteurs, regardeurs, spectateurs,
consommateurs, audience, etc. Le
dveloppement du champ profession-
nel des valuateurs dexpositions,
dont plusieurs se prsentent comme
les avocats ou les porte-parole
du public , tmoigne de cette ten-
76
dance actuelle au renforcement de la
question des publics au sein du fonc-
tionnement gnral du muse. On
parle ainsi, essentiellement depuis la
n des annes 1980, dun vritable
virage vers les publics de laction
musale pour montrer limportance
croissante de la frquentation et
la prise en compte des besoins et
attentes des visiteurs (ce point corres-
pond par ailleurs ce que lon intitule
galement tournant commercial du
muse , mme si les deux ne vont
pas forcment de pair).
3. Par extension, dans la problma-
tique des muses communautaires
et des comuses, le public sest
tendu toute la population du ter-
ritoire dans lequel ils sinscrivent. La
population est le support du muse
et, dans le cas de lcomuse, elle
devient lacteur principal et non plus
seulement la cible de ltablissement
(voir Socit).
Z DRIVS : PUBLICIT, GRAND PUBLIC, NON-PUBLIC,
PUBLIC FRAGILIS, PUBLIC-CIBLE.
) CORRLATS : UTILISATEURS, CLIENTLE, USAGERS,
AUDIENCE, COMUSE, LE PEUPLE, FIDLISATION,
FRQUENTATION, POPULATION, PRIV, VISITEURS, COMMU-
NAUT, SOCIT, SPECTATEURS, VALUATIONS, ENQUTES,
VALUATEURS, TOURISTE.
 R e
RECHERCHE
n. f. quival. angl. research ; esp. : investiga-
cin ; all. : Forschung ; it. : ricerca ; port. : pes-
quisa, investigao.
La recherche consiste explorer des
domaines pralablement dnis en
vue de faire avancer la connaissance
quon en a et laction quil est pos-
sible dexercer sur eux. Au muse,
elle constitue lensemble des activits
intellectuelles et des travaux ayant
pour objets la dcouverte, linvention
et la progression de connaissances
nouvelles lies aux collections dont il
a la charge ou ses activits.
1. Jusquen 2007, lICOM prsen-
tait la recherche, dans le cadre de sa
dnition du muse, comme le prin-
cipe moteur de son fonctionnement,
lobjectif du muse tant de faire
des recherches sur les tmoins mat-
riels de lHomme et de la socit,
et cest la raison pour laquelle il les
acquiert, les conserve et notamment
les expose . Cette dnition trs
formelle, qui prsentait en quelque
sorte le muse comme un laboratoire
ouvert au public, ne retait probable-
ment plus la ralit musale de notre
poque, puisquune grande partie
de la recherche, telle quelle seffec-
tuait encore au troisime quart du
XX sicle, sest dplace du monde
des muses vers les laboratoires et
les universits. Dsormais, le muse
acquiert, conserve, tudie, expose
et transmet le patrimoine matriel
et immatriel (ICOM, 2007). Cette
dnition rduite, en regard du projet
prcdent le terme recherche ,
par ailleurs, a t remplac par
celui dtude du patrimoine , nen
demeure pas moins essentielle pour
le fonctionnement gnral du muse.
La recherche gure parmi les trois
fonctions du modle PRC (Prser-
vation-Recherche-Communication)
propos par la Reinwardt Academie
(van Mensch, 1992) pour dnir le
fonctionnement du muse ; elle appa-
rat comme un lment fondamental
pour des penseurs aussi diffrents
que Zbynek Strnsk ou Georges
Henri Rivire. Ce dernier, mais aussi
de nombreux musologues de lEst,
comme Klaus Schreiner, a parfaite-
ment illustr, au muse national des
Arts et traditions populaires et plus
prcisment travers ses travaux sur
lAubrac, les rpercussions du pro-
gramme de recherche scientique sur
lensemble des fonctions du muse,
et notamment la politique dacquisi-
tion, celle de publication et celle des
expositions.
77
 2. Les mcanismes du march
aidant ils ont favoris les expo-
sitions temporaires au dtriment
du permanent , une partie de la
recherche fondamentale a laiss la
place une recherche plus applique,
notamment la prparation dexposi-
tions temporaires. La recherche, dans
le cadre du muse ou lie lui, peut
tre rpertorie selon quatre catgo-
ries (Davallon, 1995), selon quelle
participe son fonctionnement ( sa
technologie) ou quelle produise des
connaissances sur le muse. Le pre-
mier type de recherches, assurment
le plus dvelopp, tmoigne directe-
ment de lactivit musale classique
et se fonde sur les col lections du
muse, en sappuyant essentiel lement
sur des disciplines de rfrence, lies
au contenu des col lections (histoire
de lart, histoire, sciences naturelles,
etc.). Lactivit de classication, inh-
rente la constitution dune col lec-
tion, productrice de cata logues, a
ainsi longuement particip des acti-
vits de recherche prioritaires au
sein du muse, notamment dans les
musums de sciences naturelles (cest
le propre de la taxinomie), mais ga le-
ment dans les muses dethnographie,
darchologie et bien sr les muses
de Beaux-arts. Le second type de
recherches mobi lise des sciences et
disciplines extrieures la musolo-
gie (physique, chimie, sciences de la
78
communication, etc.) en vue de dve-
lopper les outils musographiques
(entendus ici comme technique
musale) : matriel et normes de
conser vation, dtude ou de restaura-
tion, enqutes de public, mthodes
de gestion, etc. Le troisime type de
recherches, que lon peut ici qua lier
de musologique (comme thique du
musal), vise produire une rexion
sur les missions et le fonctionnement
du muse notamment travers
lensemble des travaux dICOFOM.
Les disciplines mobi lises sont essen-
tiel lement la phi losophie et lhistoire
ou la musologie telle quelle a t
dnie par lcole de Brno. En n,
le quatrime type de recherches,
qui peut ga lement tre envisag
comme musologique (entendu
comme lensemble des rexions
critiques lies au musal), porte sur
lana lyse de linstitution, notamment
au travers de ses dimensions mdia-
tiques et patrimoniales. Les sciences
mobi lises pour la construction
de ce savoir sur le muse lui-mme
regroupent notamment lhistoire,
lanthropologie, la sociologie, la lin-
guistique,e tc.
Z DRIVS : CHERCHEUR, CENTRE DE RECHERCHE EN
MUSOLOGIE.
) CORRLATS : TUDIER, PROGRAMME SCIEN-
TIFIQUE DU MUSE, CONSERVATEUR, PRSERVATION,
COMMUNICATION, MUSOLOGIE.
 S
SOCIT
n. f. quival. angl. : society, community ; esp. :
sociedad ; all. : Gesellschaft, Bevlkerung ; it. :
societ ; port. : sociedade.
Dans son acception la plus gn-
rale, la socit est le groupe humain
compris comme un ensemble plus
ou moins cohrent dans lequel sta-
blissent des systmes de relations
et dchanges. La socit laquelle
sadresse le muse peut tre dnie
comme une communaut dindivi-
dus organise (en un espace et un
moment dnis) autour dinstitutions
politiques, conomiques, juridiques
et culturelles communes, dont le
muse fait partie et avec lesquelles il
construit son activit.
1. Le muse se prsente pour
lICOM, depuis 1974 la suite de
la dclaration de Santiago du Chili
comme une institution au service
de la socit et de son dveloppe-
ment . Cette proposition, historique-
ment dtermine par la naissance du
concept de pays en voie de dvelop-
pement , et sa qua lication, durant
les annes 1970, comme un troisime
ensemble entre les pays de lEst et les
pays occidentaux, prsente le muse
comme un agent de dveloppement
de la socit quil sagisse de culture
(lusage du terme allant jusqu inclure
son sens propre : cette poque le
dveloppement agraire) ou de tou-
risme et dconomie comme cest le
cas aujourdhui. En ce sens, la socit
peut tre entendue comme lensemble
des habitants dun ou de plusieurs
pays, voire du monde entier. Cest
notamment le cas pour lUNESCO,
promoteur le plus engag, lchelle
internationale, au maintien et au
dveloppement des cultures, dans le
respect de la diversit culturelle, ainsi
quau dveloppement des systmes
ducatifs dans lesquels le muse est
volontiers catgoris.
2. Si, premire vue, la socit
peut se dnir comme une commu-
naut structure par des institutions,
le concept de communaut lui-
mme, diffre de celui de socit,
puisquune communaut se prsente
comme un ensemble de personnes
vivant en collectivit ou formant
association, en partageant un certain
nombre de points communs (lan-
gage, religion, coutume) sans pour
autant se rassembler autour de struc-
tures institutionnelles. De manire
plus gnrale, lun et lautre termes
sont surtout diffrencis en raison
de leur taille suppose : le terme de
communaut est plus gnralement
79
 utilis pour dsigner les groupes plus
restreints mais aussi plus homognes
(la communaut juive, gay, etc., dune
ville ou dun pays), tandis que celui
de socit est souvent voqu dans
le cas densembles plus vastes et, a
priori, plus htrognes (la socit
de ce pays, la socit bourgeoise).
De manire plus prcise, le terme
community, rgulirement utilis dans
les pays anglo-amricains, ne connat
pas rellement dquivalent franais,
puisquil reprsente l ensemble des
personnes et instances concernes
diffrents titres : 1) les publics, 2) les
spcialistes, 3) [les] autres personnes
jouant un rle dans linterprtation
(presse, artistes), 4) ceux qui contri-
buent au programme ducatif par
exemple des groupes artistiques, 5)
[les] dpts et lieux de conser vation,
notamment les bibliothques, les
organismes chargs du stockage, les
muses (American Association of
Museums, 2002). Le terme est traduit
en franais, tantt par collectivit ,
tantt par population locale ou
communaut , tantt par milieu
professionnel .
3. Dans cet esprit, deux catgories
de muses les muses de socit et
les muses communautaires ont t
dveloppes depuis quelques dcen-
nies, an de souligner le lien spci-
que que certains muses entendent
exercer auprs de leur public. Ces
muses, relevant traditionnellement
des muses dethnographie, se pr-
sentent comme des tablissements
dveloppant une relation forte avec
leurs publics, lintgrant au centre
80
de leurs proccupations. Si la nature
de leur questionnement respectif
rapproche ces diffrents types de
muses, leur mode de gestion dif-
fre, de mme que leur rapport avec
les publics. Lappellation muses de
socit rassemble les muses qui
partagent le mme objectif : tudier
lvolution de lhumanit dans ses
composantes sociales et historiques,
et transmettre les relais, les repres
pour comprendre la diversit des
cultures et des socits (Barroso
et Vaillant, 1993). De tels objectifs
fondent le muse comme un lieu rel-
lement interdisciplinaire et peuvent
donner lieu, entre autre, des expo-
sitions traitant sur des sujets aussi
varis que la crise de la vache folle,
limmigration, lcologie, etc. Le
fonctionnement du muse communau-
taire, qui peut participer au mouve-
ment des muses de socit, est plus
directement li au groupe social,
culturel, professionnel ou territorial
quil prsente et qui est cens lani-
mer. Souvent gr de manire profes-
sionnelle, il peut aussi reposer parfois
uniquement sur linitiative locale et
la logique du don. Les questions quil
dbat touchent directement au fonc-
tionnement et lidentit de cette
communaut ; cest notamment le cas
des muses de voisinage ou des co-
muses.
Z DRIVS : MUSE DE SOCIT.
) CORRLATS : COMMUNAUT, MUSE COMMUNAU-
TAIRE, DVELOPPEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE, PROGRAMME
DE DVELOPPEMENT, COMUSE, IDENTIT, PUBLIC, LOCAL.

B IB LIOGRAPH IE
ADOTEVI S., 1971. Le muse dans
les systmes ducatifs et culturels
contemporains , in Actes de la
neuvime confrence gnrale de
lIcom, Grenoble, p. 19-30.
ALBERTA MUSEUMS ASSOCIATION,
2003. Standard Practices Handbook
for Museums, Alberta, Alberta
Museums Association, 2e d.
ALEXANDER E. P., 1983. Museum
Masters : their Museums and their
Inuence, Nashville, American
Association for State and Local
History.
ALEXANDER E. P., 1997. The Museum
in America, Innovators and Pioneers,
Walnut Creek, Altamira Press.
ALLARD M. et BOUCHER S., 1998.
duquer au muse. Un modle
thorique de pdagogie musale,
Montral, Hurtubise.
ALTSHULER B., 2008. Salon to
Biennial Exhibitions That Made
Art History, London, Phaidon.
AMBROSE T., PAINE C., 1993. Museum
Basics, London, Routledge.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS
[EDCOM Committee on Educa-
tion], 2002. Excellence in Practice.
Museum Education Principles and
Standards, Washington, American
Association of Museums. Dis-
ponible sur Internet : http://
www.edcom.org/Files/Admin/
EdComBookletFinalApril805.pdf
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
ARPIN R. et al., 2000. Notre Patri-
moine, un prsent du pass,
Qubec.
BABELON J.-P., CHASTEL A., 1980.
La notion de Patrimoine , La
Revue de lArt.
BARKER E., 1999. Contemporary Cul-
tures of Display, New Haven, Yale
University Press.
BARROSO E. et VAILLANT E. (dir.), 1993.
Muses et Socits, actes du colloque
Mulhouse-Ungersheim, Paris, DMF,
Ministre de la Culture.
BARY M.-O. de, TOBELEM J.-M., 1998.
Manuel de musographie, Biarritz,
Sguier Atlantica Option
Culture.
BASSO PERESSUT L., 1999. Muses.
Architectures 1990-2000, Paris/
Milan, Actes Sud/Motta.
BAUDRILLARD J., 1968. Le systme des
objets, Paris, Gallimard.
BAZIN G., 1967. Le temps des muses,
Lige, Desoer.
BENNET T., 1995. The Birth of the
Museum, London, Routledge.
BOISSY DANGLAS F. A., 1794. Quel-
ques ides sur les arts, sur la
ncessit de les encourager, sur les
institutions qui peuvent en assurer
le perfectionnement, 25 pluvise
an II.
BROWN GOODE G., 1896. The
principles of museum administra-
tion , Report of Proceedings with
the papers read at the sixth annual
general meeting, held in Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, July 23rd-26th, London,
Dulau, p. 69-148.
81
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
BUCK R., GILMORE J. A., 1998.
The New Museum Registration
Methods, Washington, American
Association of Museums.
BURCAW G. E., 1997. Introduction to
Museum Work, Walnut Creek/
London, Altamira Press, 3e d..
BUREAU CANADIEN DES ARCHIVISTES,
1990. Rgles pour la description des
documentsd archives, Ottawa.
CAILLET E., LEHALLE E., 1995.
lapproche du muse, la mdiation
culturelle, Lyon, Presses universi-
taires de Lyon.
CAMERON D., 1968. Un point de
vue : le muse considr comme
systme de communication et les
implications de ce systme dans les
programmes ducatifs musaux ,
in DESVALLES A., 1992 et 1994.
Vagues. Une anthologie de la nou-
velle musologie, Mcon, d. W. et
M.N.E.S., 2 vol.
CASSAR M., 1995. Environmental
Management, London, Routledge.
CHOAY F., 1992. Lallgorie du patri-
moine, Paris, Le Seuil.
CHOAY F., 1968. Ralit de lobjet DELOCHE B., 2007. Dnition
et ralisme de lart contempo-
rain , in KEPES G. (dir.), Lobjet
cr par lhomme, Bruxelles, La
Connaissance.
DANA J. C., 1917-1920. New Museum,
Selected Writings by John Cotton
Dana, Washington/Newark, Ame-
rican Association of Museums/The
Newark Museum, 1999.
DAVALLON J., 1992. Le muse est-
il vraiment un mdia , Public et
muses, no 2, p. 99-124.
82
DAVALLON J., 1995. Muse et muso-
logie. Introduction , in Muses et
Recherche, Actes du colloque tenu
Paris, les 29, 30 novembre et 1er
dcembre 1993, Dijon, OCIM.
DAVALLON J., 1999. Lexposition
luvre, Paris, LHarmattan.
DAVALLON J., 2006. Le don du
patrimoine. Une approche commu-
nicationnelle de la patrimoniali-
sation, Paris, Lavoisier.
DAVALLON J. (dir.), 1986. Claquemurer
pour ainsi dire tout lunivers : La
mise en exposition, Paris, Centre
Georges Pompidou.
DEAN D., 1994. Museum Exhibition.
Theory and Practice, London,
Routledge.
DEBRAY R., 2000. Introduction la
mdiologie, Paris, Presses universi-
taires de France.
DELOCHE B., 1985. Museologica.
Contradictions et logiques du muse,
Mcon, d. W. et M.N.E.S.
DELOCHE B., 2001. Le muse virtuel,
Paris, Presses universitaires de
France.
du muse , in MAIRESSE F. et
DESVALLES A., Vers une redni-
tion du muse ?, Paris, LHarmat-
tan.
DOTTE J.-L., 1986. Suspendre
Oublier , 50, Rue de Varenne,
no 2, p. 29-36.
DESVALLES A., 1995. mergence
et cheminement du mot patri-
moine , Muses et collections
publiques de France, no 208, sep-
tembre, p. 6-29.

DESVALLES A., 1998. Cent qua-
rante termes musologiques ou
petit glossaire de lexposition ,
in DE BARY M.-O., TOBELEM J.-
M., Manuel de musographie,
Paris, Sguier Option culture,
p. 205-251.
DESVALLES A., 1992 et 1994. Vagues.
Une anthologie de la nouvelle
musologie, Mcon, d. W. et
M.N.E.S., 2 vol.
DUB P., 1994. Dynamique de la for-
mation en musologie lchelle
internationale , Muses, vol. 16,
no 1, p. 30-32.
FALK J. H., DIERKING L. D., 1992. The
Museum Experience, Washington,
Whalesback Books.
FALK J.H., DIERKING L. D., 2000.
Learning from Museums, New
York, Altamira Press.
FERNNDEZ L. A., 1999. Introduccin
a la nueva museologa, Madrid,
Alianza Editorial.
FERNNDEZ L. A., 1999. Museologa y
Museografa, Barcelona, Ediciones
del Serbal.
FINDLEN P., 1989. The Museum :
its classical etymology and Renais-
sance genealogy , Jour nal of the
History of Collections, vol. 1, no 1,
p. 59-78.
GABUS, J., 1965. Principes esth-
tiques et prparation des exposi-
tions pdagogiques , Museum,
vol. XVIII, no 1, p. 51-59 et no 2,
p. 65-97.
GALARD J. (dir.), 2000. Le regard ins-
truit, action ducative et action
culturelle dans les muses, Actes
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
du colloque organis au muse du
Louvre le 16 avril 1999, Paris, La
Documentation franaise.
GOB A., DROUGUET N., 2003. La
musologie. Histoire, dvelop-
pements, enjeux actuels, Paris,
Armand Colin.
GREGOROV A., 1980. La musolo-
gie science ou seulement travail
pratique du muse , MuWoP-
DoTraM, no 1, p. 19-21.
HAINARD J., 1984. La revanche du
conser vateur , in HAINARD J.,
KAEHR R. (dir.), Objets prtextes,
objets manipuls, Neuchtel,
Muse dethnographie.
HEGEL G. W. F., 1807. Phnomnolo-
gie de lesprit, tr. fr. BOURGEOIS B.,
Paris, J. Vrin, 2006.
HOOPER-GREENHILL E. (dir.), 1994.
The Educational Role of the
Museum, London, Routledge.
HOOPER-GREENHILL E. (dir.), 1995.
Museum, Media, Message, London,
Routledge.
ICOM, 2006. Code de dontologie
pour les muses, Paris. Dispo-
nible sur Internet : http://icom-
museum/
ICOM-CC, 2008. Resolution submit-
ted to the ICOM-CC membership.
Terminologie de la conservation-
restauration du patrimoine culturel
matriel, XVe Confrence trien-
nale de New Delhi, tenue du 22 au
26s eptembre 2008. Disponible
sur Internet : http://www.icom-cc.
org/10/documents ?catId=2
JANES R. R., 1995. Museums and the
Paradox of Change. A Case Study
83
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
in Urgent Adaptation, Calgary,
Glenbow Museum.
KARP I. et al. (dir.), 2006. Museum Fric-
tions, Durham, Duke University.
KLSER B., HEGEWISCH K. (dir.), 1998.
Lart de lexposition, Paris, ditions
du Regard.
KNELL S., 2004. The Museum and
the Future of Collecting, London,
Ashgate, 2e d.
LASSWELL H., 1948. The Structure
and Function of Communication
in Society , in BRYSON L. (dir.),
The Communication of Ideas, Har-
per and Row.
LEIBNIZ G. W., 1690. Smtliche
Schriften und Briefe. Erste Reihe.
Allgemeiner politischer und
historischer Briefwechsel, vol. 5
[1687-1690]. Berlin, Akademie
Verlag, 1954.
LENIAUD J. M., 2002. Les archipels du
pass, le patrimoine et son histoire,
Paris, Fayard.
LUGLI A., 1998. Naturalia et Mirabilia,
les cabinets de curiosit en Europe,
Paris, Adam Biro.
MALINOWSKI, B., 1944. A Scientic
Theory of Culture, Chapel Hill,
University of North Carolina
Press.
MALRAUX A., 1947. Le muse imagi-
naire, Paris, Gallimard.
MALRAUX A., 1951. Les voix du
silence Le muse imaginaire,
Paris, NRF.
MAROEVIC I., 1998. Introduction
to Museology the European
Approach, Munich, Verlag
Christian Mller-Straten.
84
MAROEVIC .I, 2007. Vers la nou-
velle dnition du muse , in
MAIRESSE F., DESVALLES A. (dir.),
Vers une rednition du muse ?,
Paris, LHarmattan.
MAUSS M., 1923. Essai sur le don ,
in Sociologie et anthropologie, Paris,
PUF, 1950, p. 143-279.
MCLUHAN M., PARKER H., BARZUN J.,
1969. Le muse non linaire. Explo-
ration des mthodes, moyens et
valeurs de la communication avec
le public par le muse, tr. fr. par
B. Deloche et F. Mairesse avec la
collab. de S. Nash, Lyon, Alas,
2008.
VAN MENSCH P., 1992. Towards
a Methodology of Museology,
University of Zagreb, Faculty of
Philosophy, Thse de doctorat.
MIRONER L., 2001. Cent muses la
rencontre du public, Paris, France
dition.
MOORE K. (dir.), 1999. Management
in Museums, London, Athlone
Press.
NEICKEL C. F., 1727. Museographia
oder Anleitung zum rechten
Begriff und ntzlicher Anlegung
der Museorum, oder Raritten-
Kammern, Leipzig.
NEVES C., 2005. Concern at the Core.
Managing Smithsonian Collec-
tions, Washington, Smithsonian
Institution, Avril. Disponible
sur Internet : http://www.si.edu/
opanda/studies_of_resources.html
NORA P. (dir.), 1984-1987. Les lieux de
mmoire. La Rpublique, la Nation,
les France, Paris, Gallimard, 8 vol.

OBSERVATOIRE DE LA CULTURE ET DES
COMMUNICATIONS DU QUBEC, 2004.
Systme de classication des activi-
ts de la culture et des communica-
tions du Qubec. Disponible sur
Internet : http://www.stat.gouv.
qc.ca/obser vatoire/scaccq/princi-
pale.htm
PERRET A., 1931. Architecture
dabord ! , in WILDENSTEIN G.,
Muses. Les Cahiers de la Rpu-
blique des Lettres, des Sciences et
des Arts, vol. XIII, Paris, p. 97.
PINNA G., 2003. [Proposition de d-
nition du muse participation
la discussion sur le forum
ICOM-L], ICOM-L, 3 dcembre,
Disponible sur Internet : http://
home.ease.lsof t.com /scr ipts/
wa.exe ?A1=ind0312&L=icom-l
PITMAN B. (dir.), 1999. Presence of
Mind. Museums and the Spirit of
Learning, Washington, American
Association of Museums.
POMIAN K., 1987. Collectionneurs,
amateurs et curieux : Paris,
Venise, XVIe -XVIIIe sicles, Paris,
Gallimard.
POMMIER E. (dir.), 1995. Les muses en
Europe la veille de louverture du
Louvre, Actes du colloque, 3-5 juin
1993, Paris, Klincksieck.
POULOT D., 1997. Muse, nation, patri-
moine, Paris, Gallimard.
POULOT D., 2005. Une histoire des
muses de France, Paris, La Dcou-
verte.
POULOT D., 2006. Une histoire du
patrimoine en Occident, Paris,
PUF.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
PREZIOSI D., FARAGO C., 2003. Grasping
the World, the Idea of the Museum,
London, Ashgate.
PUTHOD de MAISONROUGE, 1791. Les
Monuments ou le plerinage histo-
rique, no 1, Paris, p. 2-17.
QUATREMRE DE QUINCY A., 1796.
Lettres Miranda sur le dplace-
ment des monuments de lart en
Italie (1796), Paris, Macula, 1989.
R ASSE P., 1999. Les muses la lumire
de lespace public, Paris, LHarmat-
tan.
R AU L., 1908. Lorganisation des
muses , Revue de synthse histo-
rique, t. 17, p. 146-170 et 273-291.
R ENAN E., 1882. Quest-ce quune
nation ?, Confrence en Sorbonne,
le 11 mars.
R ICO J. C., 2006. Manual prctico de
museologa, museografa y tcnicas
expositivas, Madrid, Silex.
R IEGL A., 1903. Der Moderne Denk-
malkultus, tr. fr. Le culte moderne
des monuments, Paris, Seuil, 1984.
R IVIRE G. H. et alii., 1989. La muso-
logie selon Georges Henri Rivire,
Paris, Dunod.
R IVIRE, G.H., 1978. Dnition
de lcomuse , cit dans Lco-
muse, un modle volutif , in
DESVALLES A., 1992, Vagues. Une
anthologie de la nouvelle musolo-
gie, Mcon, d. W. et M.N.E.S.,
vol. 1, p. 440-445.
R IVIRE, G.H., 1981. Musologie ,
repris dans R IVIRE, G.H. et alii.,
1989, La musologie selon Georges
Henri Rivire, Paris, Dunod.
85
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
RUGE A. (dir.), 2008. Rfrentiel
europen des professions musales,
ICTOP. Disponible sur Inter-
net : http://ictop.alfahosting.org/
images/pdf/referentiel_2008.pdf
SCHRER M. R., 2003. Die Ausstellung
Theorie und Exempel, Mnchen,
Mller-Straten.
SCHEINER T., 2007. Muse et muso-
logie. Dnitions en cours , in
MAIRESSE F. et DESVALLES A., Vers
une rednition du muse ?, Paris,
LHarmattan, p. 147-165.
SCHREINER K., 1985. Authentic
objects and auxiliary materials in
museums , ICOFOM Study Series,
no 8, p. 63-68.
SCHULZ E., 1990. Notes on
the history of collecting and
of museums , Journal of the
History of Collections, vol. 2, no 2,
p. 205-218.
SCHWEIBENZ W., 2004. Le muse
virtuel , Nouvelles de lICOM
[premire dnition en 1998],
vol. 57, no 3, p. 3.
SHAPIRO R. 2004. Quest-ce que
lartication ? , in Lindividu social,
e
XVII Congrs de lAISLF, Comit
de recherche 18, Sociologie de lart,
Tours, juillet 2004. Disponible sur
Internet : http://halshs.archives-
ouvertes.fr/docs/00/06/71/36/
PDF/ArticHAL.pdf
SCHOUTEN F., 1987. Lduca-
tion dans les muses : un d
permanent , Museum, no 156,
p. 241 sq.
SMITH L. (dir.), 2006. Cultural
Heritage. Critical Concepts in Media
86
and Cultural Studies, London,
Routledge, 4 vol.
SPIELBAUER J., 1987. Museums
and Museology : a Means to
Active Integrative Preservation ,
ICOFOM Study Series, no 12,
p. 271-277.
STRNSK Z. Z., 1980. Museology as
a Science (a thesis) , Museologia,
15, XI, p. 33-40.
STRNSK Z. Z., 1987. La muso-
logie est-elle une consquence
de lexistence des muses ou les
prcde-t-elle et dtermine [-t-elle]
leur avenir ? , ICOFOM Study
Series, no 12, p. 295.
STRNSK Z. Z., 1995. Musologie.
Introduction aux tudes, Brno, Uni-
versit Masaryk.
TOBELEM J.-M. (dir.), 1996. Muses.
Grer autrement. Un regard inter-
national, Paris, Ministre de la
Culture et La Documentation fran-
aise.
TOBELEM J.-M., 2010. Le nouvel ge
des muses, Paris, Armand Colin.
TORAILLE R., 1985. LAnimation pda-
gogique aujourdhui, Paris, ESF.
UNESCO, 1972. Convention concer-
nant la protection du patrimoine
mondial culturel et naturel, Paris,
16 novembre. Disponible sur Inter-
net : http://www.unesco.org/new/
UNESCO, 1993. Cration lUNESCO
dun dispositif concernant les biens
culturels vivants (trsors humains
vivants), adopte par le bureau
excutif de lUNESCO sa 142e ses-
sion (Paris, 10 dcembre 1993).
Disponible sur Internet : http://

unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/
000958/095831eo.pdf
UNESCO, 2003. Convention pour la
sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel
immatriel, 17 octobre. Dispo-
nible sur Internet : http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0013/001325/
132540f.pdf
VAN LIER H., 1969. Objet et esth-
tique , Communications, no 13,
p. 92-95.
VERGO P. (dir.), 1989. The New Museo-
logy, London, Reaktion books.
VICQ dAZYR, F., POIRIER, DOM G.,
1794. Instruction sur la manire
dinventorier et de conserver, dans
toute ltendue de la Rpublique,
tous les objets qui peuvent servir
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
aux arts, aux sciences et lensei-
gnement. Rd. in DELOCHE B.,
LENIAUD J.-M., 1989, La Culture des
sans-culotte, Paris/Montpellier, d.
de Paris/Presses du Languedoc,
p.175-242, p. 177 et 236.
WAIDACHER F., 1996. Handbuch der
Allgemeinen Museologie, Wien,
Bhlau Verlag, 2e d.
WEIL S., 2002. Making Museums
Matter, Washington, Smithsonian.
WIENER N., 1948. Cybernetics : Or
Control and Communication in the
Animal and the Machine, Paris/
Cambridge, Librairie Hermann &
Cie/MIT Press.
ZUBIAUR CARREO F. J., 2004. Curso
de museologa, Gijn, Trea.