Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T08:23:21.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Museums and the Things in Them Should Be Alive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2008

Mark Busse
Mark Busse
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland. Email: m.busse@auckland.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the last 20 years, museums have attracted unprecedented academic attention. For the first time in their history, museums as institutions have been the subject of theorizing as well as intense academic and public debates about their place in the contemporary world. Much of the theoretical work has taken place in the context of the New Museology, a critical goal of which has been to rethink the manifold and complex relationships between museums and the societies in which they exist. Advocates of the New Museology have prominently sought ways to make museums less elitist but more inclusive, that is more directly and democratically involved with their various constituencies such as the people who create and use the objects that museums collect or the audiences who visit museum exhibitions and participate in museum programs. Unfortunately, the New Museology has been rather long on theory and rather short on detailed explorations or accounts of the implications of its theoretical formulations for museum practice, that is for the day-to-day activities and interactions comprising the work that goes on in and around museums.

Type
Special Section: Museums and the Pacific
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 189 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 2006.Google Scholar
Gell, Alfred. “The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology.” In Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics, edited by Coote, Jeremy and Shelton, Anthony, 40–63. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godelier, Maurice. The Enigma of the Gift. (Nora Scott, trans.) Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Gregory, Christopher A.Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Handler, Richard. “Who Owns the Past? History, Cultural Property and the Logic of Possessive Individualism.” In The Politics of Culture, edited by Williams, Brett, 63–74. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Hann, Chris M. “Introduction: the embeddedness of property. In Property Relations: Renewing the Anthropological Tradition, edited by Hann, Chris M., 1–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Eric, and Strathern, Marilyn, eds. Transactions and Creations: Property Debates and the Stimulus of Melanesia. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, Tim. “Materials Against Materiality.” Archaeological Dialogues 14 (2007): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, James. “Owning Creativity: Cultural Property and the Efficacy of Custom on the Rai Coast of Papua New Guinea.” Journal of Material Culture 8 (2003): 123–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucie-Smith, Edward. The Thames and Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms. London: Thames and Hudson, 2003.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. The meaning of property. InProperty: Mainstream and Critical Positions, edited by Macpherson, C.B., 1–13. Oxford: Basil Blackwood, 1978.Google Scholar
Mauss, Marcel. Essai sur le don: forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques. Année Sociologique 1 (1925): 30–186.Google Scholar
Mead, Hirini Moko. The Nature of Taonga. Proceedings of the Taonga Māori ConferenceNew Zealand17–27 November 1990, 164–69. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs, 1992.Google Scholar
Metge, Joan. Returning the Gift—Utu in Intergroup Relations. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 111 (2002): 311–38.Google Scholar
Moore, Kevin. Museums and Popular Culture. London and Washington: Cassell, 1997.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jennifer Elizabeth. “Zones of Negotiation: The Auckland Museum's Relationships with Pacific Islands Communities.” Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, 2004.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergo, Peter, ed. The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books, 1989.Google Scholar
West, Shearer. Bloomsbury Guide to Art. London: Bloomsbury, 1996.Google Scholar
Witcomb, Andrea. Re-Imagining the Museum: Beyond the Mausoleum. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar