“Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.
Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.”
The International Council of Museums (ICOM), has made slight adjustments to their definition in the last 50 years, but never anything this drastic. The organization represents over 20,000 museums from around the world and not all of them are in favour of this change. The fact that efforts to encourage diversity and preserve cultural identities are seen as ideological stances speaks beyond the world of museums.
What is art without politics? I am a proponent of the belief that the meaning of art can never be removed from its creator and that creators are never devoid of the socio-cultural influence from the places and periods in which they work. It is impossible to understand art without consideration of what was going on in the world of the artist, nor what is going on in the world of the viewer. To make art is to leave it up for interpretation and museums today must recognize that. Because, whether or not they should have, if social justice and human dignity have become polarized politics, then there is a side museums have to take.
Representatives from France led the charge against this new definition. There was particular concern over the ability of museums like the Louvre to embrace the new definition. At ICOM’s meeting in Kyoto earlier this September, where they voted to postpone the vote, there were also voices saying there is more than one type of museum and that the new definition is too narrow. I find, however, the new definition to be the exact opposite: it should broaden the scope of museums. The concern is obviously that the new definition seeks to promote diversity which would take away from museums whose goal is to celebrate and preserve a specific culture. Of course, the inclusion of social justice makes it so museums focusing on a minority culture still fulfill ICOM’s aims. So what about institutions like the Louvre? What about museums that focus on nations or cultures that are not in the minority? There should be no concerns that the new definition would force places to abandon masterpieces native to their country. Using France as an example, it has long been a leader in the art and cultural world. But art museums also represent history, and no country is without its own pitfalls in history. Can museums truly educate the public without presenting art from people who have experienced tragedies in or at the hands of such countries? And what does it say about museums who claim to be cultural institutions with broad and accurate knowledge, educating the public, and leaving out stories they do not like? At best, it presents false information, but at worst, it’s cultural erasure and perpetuates colonial mindsets in modern day.
For those who garner concerns about about the new definition diluting the integrity of the Louvre, I would point them to Paris’ second-most iconic art institution: the Musee D’Orsay. The Musee D’Orsay has found a space for diversity and innovation among their most iconic works. Earlier this year, London artist Tracy Emin became the third contemporary artist to, as the museum states: “offer their insight into its world.” Of the three, Emin was the first woman and the first artist to exhibit her own works alongside those of Degas, Gauguin, and others which she selected. Prior to Emin, Musee D’Orsay invited Glenn Ligon, an American artist whose experiences as a black, gay man frequently inform his work. This kind of representation is what the new definition seeks to promote. Museums can offer a platform to a diverse group of contemporary artists and artists of the past while still maintaining their own individual ethos. ICOM has yet to reschedule their vote on the new definition, but it will hopefully go forward and bring more museums into the social expectations of the 21st century.
