Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu27.2021.204
A. Amosova, Alina K. Cherchintseva
For the first time, the display of frontline life in the museum space was realized during the war years in the framework of military-historical exhibitions that supported the morale of people, served as a means of information about the situation at the fronts. The tragic daily life of the siege was first presented in the format of an exhibition, and later in the Museum of the Defense of Leningrad. The range of topics covered included partisan life, features of organizing urban space, and others. As a result of the Leningrad Affair, the topic of defense and siege was tacitly banned. During Khrushchev’s “thaw”, the Museum of the History of Leningrad was the first to break the silence by undertaking a series of exhibition projects dedicated to the complex topic of the siege. Since the late 1980s, the staff of the revived Museum of the Defense of Leningrad has organized exhibitions devoted to radio broadcasting in the besieged city, reflection of the realities of the siege in painting, graphics, and sculpture, which expanded the content coverage of the topic concerning everyday military life. The baton was picked up by other historical museums of St. Petersburg, which implemented museum displays dedicated to the daily life of a person at the front. This study analyzes the forms of interpretation of the siege and frontline everyday life in the space of Leningrad — St. Petersburg historical museums in the second half of the 20th century. Particular attention is paid to iconic expositions and exhibitions of the period under study: their ideological content and museum objects included are considered and key exposition decisions are analyzed. The article is based on a corpus of archival materials, sources of museum origin, and materials from periodicals.
{"title":"Ways of interpreting the siege and frontline daily life in expositions and exhibitions of Leningrad — St. Petersburg historical museums in the 1940s–1990s","authors":"A. Amosova, Alina K. Cherchintseva","doi":"10.21638/spbu27.2021.204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu27.2021.204","url":null,"abstract":"For the first time, the display of frontline life in the museum space was realized during the war years in the framework of military-historical exhibitions that supported the morale of people, served as a means of information about the situation at the fronts. The tragic daily life of the siege was first presented in the format of an exhibition, and later in the Museum of the Defense of Leningrad. The range of topics covered included partisan life, features of organizing urban space, and others. As a result of the Leningrad Affair, the topic of defense and siege was tacitly banned. During Khrushchev’s “thaw”, the Museum of the History of Leningrad was the first to break the silence by undertaking a series of exhibition projects dedicated to the complex topic of the siege. Since the late 1980s, the staff of the revived Museum of the Defense of Leningrad has organized exhibitions devoted to radio broadcasting in the besieged city, reflection of the realities of the siege in painting, graphics, and sculpture, which expanded the content coverage of the topic concerning everyday military life. The baton was picked up by other historical museums of St. Petersburg, which implemented museum displays dedicated to the daily life of a person at the front. This study analyzes the forms of interpretation of the siege and frontline everyday life in the space of Leningrad — St. Petersburg historical museums in the second half of the 20th century. Particular attention is paid to iconic expositions and exhibitions of the period under study: their ideological content and museum objects included are considered and key exposition decisions are analyzed. The article is based on a corpus of archival materials, sources of museum origin, and materials from periodicals.","PeriodicalId":115184,"journal":{"name":"The Issues of Museology","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126223679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/11701/SPBU27.2020.214
S. Chebanenko
The question of the fate of the “Benin bronze” is part of a more general problem of the restitution of African art pieces exported from the continent, during the period of European colonial rule. The difference between the history of the looting of the monuments of the Benin Kingdom (the territory of modern Nigeria) by British troops from many other examples of the removal of original African heritage, is in the fact, that in this case there was a robbery committed as a result of a military conflict, both sides of which were politically independent. The political independence of each party, strictly speaking, does not allow for the situation to be considered in the system of relations “metropolis — colony”. Modern owners of Benin monuments, spread across a number of museums and other collections in the world, recognize the injustice of their acquisitions, but they do not always recognize the possibility and necessity of restitution of these artifacts. This is facilitated by the complexity of the history of objects after their exportation from Africa and the absence of, in most cases, legal grounds for their direct return. Recently, the situation has changed significantly, making it possible to transfer a vast portion of art pieces, originating from Benin, on the basis of not so much the letter of the law, but on the desire to restore justice.
{"title":"Regarding the problem of restitution of African art pieces removed from Benin during the British military expedition of 1897: practice and legal aspects","authors":"S. Chebanenko","doi":"10.21638/11701/SPBU27.2020.214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/SPBU27.2020.214","url":null,"abstract":"The question of the fate of the “Benin bronze” is part of a more general problem of the restitution of African art pieces exported from the continent, during the period of European colonial rule. The difference between the history of the looting of the monuments of the Benin Kingdom (the territory of modern Nigeria) by British troops from many other examples of the removal of original African heritage, is in the fact, that in this case there was a robbery committed as a result of a military conflict, both sides of which were politically independent. The political independence of each party, strictly speaking, does not allow for the situation to be considered in the system of relations “metropolis — colony”. Modern owners of Benin monuments, spread across a number of museums and other collections in the world, recognize the injustice of their acquisitions, but they do not always recognize the possibility and necessity of restitution of these artifacts. This is facilitated by the complexity of the history of objects after their exportation from Africa and the absence of, in most cases, legal grounds for their direct return. Recently, the situation has changed significantly, making it possible to transfer a vast portion of art pieces, originating from Benin, on the basis of not so much the letter of the law, but on the desire to restore justice.","PeriodicalId":115184,"journal":{"name":"The Issues of Museology","volume":"128 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133505911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu27.2022.110
I. A. Sizova
The quarantine and post-quarantine restrictions have forced museums to pay close attention to digital content. Initially, this was done to maintain their audience and public interest, and after that, they began to think about monetizing these products. Monetizing digital content can help them recover lost revenue. Monetization of online museum products refers to the process of converting free or paid online products and services developed by museums themselves or in collaboration with developers. In this article, the author identifies mechanisms and strategies for monetizing museum online products that can also apply to museums in modern times. The case study was the main method of analysis. Four possible methods for monetizing museum online products were identified as a result of the study. Several factors should be considered before developing museum online products. In addition, six strategies for monetizing virtual initiatives were identified, whose development must take into account such factors as time, human and material resources of the museum as well as the uniqueness and quality of the content. Therefore, we can conclude that the introduction of monetization was a difficult process for museums, accompanied by a number of problems related to the distribution of time and significant human resources, as well as financial costs; lack of motivation for museum staff; using outdated software; the dual nature of the online product, which works both outside the museum and draws visitors directly into the museum halls.
{"title":"Monetizing online museum products: Mechanisms, strategies, and examples","authors":"I. A. Sizova","doi":"10.21638/spbu27.2022.110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu27.2022.110","url":null,"abstract":"The quarantine and post-quarantine restrictions have forced museums to pay close attention to digital content. Initially, this was done to maintain their audience and public interest, and after that, they began to think about monetizing these products. Monetizing digital content can help them recover lost revenue. Monetization of online museum products refers to the process of converting free or paid online products and services developed by museums themselves or in collaboration with developers. In this article, the author identifies mechanisms and strategies for monetizing museum online products that can also apply to museums in modern times. The case study was the main method of analysis. Four possible methods for monetizing museum online products were identified as a result of the study. Several factors should be considered before developing museum online products. In addition, six strategies for monetizing virtual initiatives were identified, whose development must take into account such factors as time, human and material resources of the museum as well as the uniqueness and quality of the content. Therefore, we can conclude that the introduction of monetization was a difficult process for museums, accompanied by a number of problems related to the distribution of time and significant human resources, as well as financial costs; lack of motivation for museum staff; using outdated software; the dual nature of the online product, which works both outside the museum and draws visitors directly into the museum halls.","PeriodicalId":115184,"journal":{"name":"The Issues of Museology","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132568860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu27.2022.209
Anzhelika V. Uvarova
In the article author conducts research of the assault flags from the collection of Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineer and Signal Corps. They were planted on the liberated by the Soviet Army cities. At the beginning of the article the reader is informed about the meaning of the basic concepts. There aren’t differences between знамя and флаг in vexillology. Therefore, several definitions of Russian researchers were considered. Then in the article are stated that this group are flags, as it symbolizes the whole state — the Soviet Union. The author emphasizes that the tradition of planting assault flags over liberated cities appeared during the radical turn of 1942–1943, and at the same time flags began to be transferred to museums for storage. In the Artillery Historical Museum they began to arrive from 1943. In addition, their appearance wasn’t regulated. Therefore, in the article the problem of similar and different characteristics is raised. At the semiotic level, all flags carry a single code, being a symbol of liberation, victory of the Soviet Union and friendly countries over the German invaders. At the material level, due to the lack of clear regulation of the appearance, each flag has its own individual features: size, shape, presence or absence of images and inscriptions, methods of attachment to the flagpole, the context of their appearance. In conclusion the potential for reflecting the theme of the Great Patriotic War and the memory of the people in exposition and exhibition projects is evaluated.
{"title":"Investigation of assault flags from the collection of the Military-Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineer and Signal Corps","authors":"Anzhelika V. Uvarova","doi":"10.21638/spbu27.2022.209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu27.2022.209","url":null,"abstract":"In the article author conducts research of the assault flags from the collection of Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineer and Signal Corps. They were planted on the liberated by the Soviet Army cities. At the beginning of the article the reader is informed about the meaning of the basic concepts. There aren’t differences between знамя and флаг in vexillology. Therefore, several definitions of Russian researchers were considered. Then in the article are stated that this group are flags, as it symbolizes the whole state — the Soviet Union. The author emphasizes that the tradition of planting assault flags over liberated cities appeared during the radical turn of 1942–1943, and at the same time flags began to be transferred to museums for storage. In the Artillery Historical Museum they began to arrive from 1943. In addition, their appearance wasn’t regulated. Therefore, in the article the problem of similar and different characteristics is raised. At the semiotic level, all flags carry a single code, being a symbol of liberation, victory of the Soviet Union and friendly countries over the German invaders. At the material level, due to the lack of clear regulation of the appearance, each flag has its own individual features: size, shape, presence or absence of images and inscriptions, methods of attachment to the flagpole, the context of their appearance. In conclusion the potential for reflecting the theme of the Great Patriotic War and the memory of the people in exposition and exhibition projects is evaluated.","PeriodicalId":115184,"journal":{"name":"The Issues of Museology","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131293226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu27.2021.207
Yekaterina I. Reznikova
The article explores the phenomenon of Kazakhstan’s still life as exemplified by selected paintings from the collection of the Kasteyev State Museum of Arts of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It reviews works by several generations of painters, from the inception of the professional school of painting in Kazakhstan to date. Without claiming to provide a comprehensive overview of the painters who consistently developed still life, the article attempts to identify key philosophical and stylistic tendencies in this specific genre from a historical perspective. Studying the evolution of still life in Kazakhstan’s art based on the nation’s largest art collection is an opportunity to outline the main milestones in the development of the national school of painting and discover its greatest painters. The article reviews works by Kazakhstan’s most prominent artists, including the founder of the national school of painting Abylkhan Kasteyev whose name was given to the museum in 1984; national artists from the 1950s Aisha Galimbayeva and Gulfairus Ismailova; the 1960s’ Togbolat Togysbayev, Ivan Bondarenko, and Aria Shkolny; the 1970s’ Kenzhebay Duisenbayev; and some contemporaries. It also touches upon the development of the museum’s collection based on the example of one of its largest sections. The number of works included in the collection and its high artistic value makes the Kasteyev State Museum of Arts the country’s largest and oldest collection, with a history of more than 85 years.
本文以哈萨克斯坦共和国卡斯捷耶夫国家艺术博物馆收藏的精选画作为例，探讨了哈萨克斯坦静物画的现象。它回顾了几代画家的作品，从哈萨克斯坦专业绘画学校成立至今。没有声称提供一个全面的概述的画家谁始终发展静物，文章试图从历史的角度来确定关键的哲学和风格倾向，在这一特定的流派。以哈萨克斯坦最大的艺术收藏为基础，研究哈萨克斯坦静物艺术的演变，是一个勾勒国家绘画流派发展的主要里程碑并发现其最伟大画家的机会。这篇文章回顾了哈萨克斯坦最杰出艺术家的作品，包括国家绘画学派的创始人阿比尔汗·卡斯捷耶夫(Abylkhan Kasteyev)，他的名字于1984年被命名为博物馆;20世纪50年代的国家艺术家艾莎·加林巴耶娃和古菲尔鲁斯·伊斯梅洛娃;20世纪60年代的Togbolat Togysbayev, Ivan Bondarenko和Aria Shkolny;20世纪70年代的肯哲贝·杜伊森巴耶夫;还有一些同时代的人。它还以其最大的部分之一为例，触及了博物馆藏品的发展。卡斯捷耶夫国家艺术博物馆拥有超过85年的历史，其收藏的作品数量和极高的艺术价值使其成为俄罗斯最大、最古老的收藏品。
{"title":"Evolution of Kazakhstan’s still life based on examples from the collection of the Kasteyev State Museum of Arts of the Republic of Kazakhstan","authors":"Yekaterina I. Reznikova","doi":"10.21638/spbu27.2021.207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu27.2021.207","url":null,"abstract":"The article explores the phenomenon of Kazakhstan’s still life as exemplified by selected paintings from the collection of the Kasteyev State Museum of Arts of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It reviews works by several generations of painters, from the inception of the professional school of painting in Kazakhstan to date. Without claiming to provide a comprehensive overview of the painters who consistently developed still life, the article attempts to identify key philosophical and stylistic tendencies in this specific genre from a historical perspective. Studying the evolution of still life in Kazakhstan’s art based on the nation’s largest art collection is an opportunity to outline the main milestones in the development of the national school of painting and discover its greatest painters. The article reviews works by Kazakhstan’s most prominent artists, including the founder of the national school of painting Abylkhan Kasteyev whose name was given to the museum in 1984; national artists from the 1950s Aisha Galimbayeva and Gulfairus Ismailova; the 1960s’ Togbolat Togysbayev, Ivan Bondarenko, and Aria Shkolny; the 1970s’ Kenzhebay Duisenbayev; and some contemporaries. It also touches upon the development of the museum’s collection based on the example of one of its largest sections. The number of works included in the collection and its high artistic value makes the Kasteyev State Museum of Arts the country’s largest and oldest collection, with a history of more than 85 years.","PeriodicalId":115184,"journal":{"name":"The Issues of Museology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114471611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu27.2022.201
Andrei A. Sal’nikov
This article considers the founding and first years of existence of museum in Kolomenskoye. The history of the museum in 1923–1930 is traced basing on a rich archive material from archive of Kolomenskoye museum-reserve, Central state archive of Moscow region and Department of Written sources of State Historic Museum. In this article, the condition of architectural monuments in Kolomenskoye during first years after the revolution and their use by different organizations is described in detail. The administrative struggle of Petr Dmitrievich Baranovskiy for transfer of monuments of former tsar’s estate of 16th–19th centuries to museum is in focus. The author considers difficult issue of museum — church relations at that period and their influence on the attitude of Kolomenskoye dwellers and dwellers of another nearest villages to the museum. The article also touches upon the problem of museum’s security and its existence in conditions of hard criminal situation of first post-revolutionary years. The article indirectly considers the issues of the formation of museum staff and restauration of the monuments. Above the frames of this article are the issues of the formation of the museum’s collection and biographies of its first employees, including the biography of P.D.Baranovskiy, about whom many works have already been written. The actuality of the theme of founding of the museum in Kolomenskoye is due to the forthcoming one hundred anniversary of the museum. At this moment, there are no researches in scientific literature, which could give a holistic view of the founding of the first open-air museum of architectural monuments in Russia in former summer residence of Russian tsars.
{"title":"The founding of first Russian Open-air Museum of Architecture in Kolomenskoye: The hard struggle of P.D.Baranovskiy","authors":"Andrei A. Sal’nikov","doi":"10.21638/spbu27.2022.201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu27.2022.201","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the founding and first years of existence of museum in Kolomenskoye. The history of the museum in 1923–1930 is traced basing on a rich archive material from archive of Kolomenskoye museum-reserve, Central state archive of Moscow region and Department of Written sources of State Historic Museum. In this article, the condition of architectural monuments in Kolomenskoye during first years after the revolution and their use by different organizations is described in detail. The administrative struggle of Petr Dmitrievich Baranovskiy for transfer of monuments of former tsar’s estate of 16th–19th centuries to museum is in focus. The author considers difficult issue of museum — church relations at that period and their influence on the attitude of Kolomenskoye dwellers and dwellers of another nearest villages to the museum. The article also touches upon the problem of museum’s security and its existence in conditions of hard criminal situation of first post-revolutionary years. The article indirectly considers the issues of the formation of museum staff and restauration of the monuments. Above the frames of this article are the issues of the formation of the museum’s collection and biographies of its first employees, including the biography of P.D.Baranovskiy, about whom many works have already been written. The actuality of the theme of founding of the museum in Kolomenskoye is due to the forthcoming one hundred anniversary of the museum. At this moment, there are no researches in scientific literature, which could give a holistic view of the founding of the first open-air museum of architectural monuments in Russia in former summer residence of Russian tsars.","PeriodicalId":115184,"journal":{"name":"The Issues of Museology","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123310683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu27.2021.213
Ekaterina A. Gordeeva
The article examines the features of the functioning and preservation of the industrial heritage of St. Petersburg within the “gray belt”. The author formulates the concept of industrial heritage based on the materials of international documents. The article also provides several types of classification of industrial heritage sites, which have chosen one of the key principles as their basis, as well as the main criteria for preservation. By reviewing the history of the development of the industrial “gray belt” as a historically established urban environment that has become a barrier between historical buildings and residential neighborhoods of St. Petersburg, the author aims to display the key problems of preserving industrial heritage within the belt and identify the main trends in working with it. Thus, having originated almost simultaneously with the city, the “gray belt” formed its main image at the turn of the 19th — early 20th centuries. Throughout the 20th century, several attempts were made to reconstruct industrial areas, but they were unsuccessful. Only in the late 1990s did certain processes begin that were associated with the relocation or closure of industrial enterprises. At the moment, the territory of the “gray belt” contains many monuments of cultural heritage that need protection from looters and unscrupulous owners. In the article, the following are indicated as the main directions of work with the belt’s industrial heritage: conservation, redevelopment, revitalization, etc. Special attention in the article is paid to museumification. In the author’s opinion, this is the most underestimated direction by the state authorities and private investors. Also in the article, the author formulates further prospects for the development of cultural practices in this segment of urban development.
{"title":"Industrial heritage of the “gray belt” of St. Petersburg: Problems of preservation and future prospects","authors":"Ekaterina A. Gordeeva","doi":"10.21638/spbu27.2021.213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu27.2021.213","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the features of the functioning and preservation of the industrial heritage of St. Petersburg within the “gray belt”. The author formulates the concept of industrial heritage based on the materials of international documents. The article also provides several types of classification of industrial heritage sites, which have chosen one of the key principles as their basis, as well as the main criteria for preservation. By reviewing the history of the development of the industrial “gray belt” as a historically established urban environment that has become a barrier between historical buildings and residential neighborhoods of St. Petersburg, the author aims to display the key problems of preserving industrial heritage within the belt and identify the main trends in working with it. Thus, having originated almost simultaneously with the city, the “gray belt” formed its main image at the turn of the 19th — early 20th centuries. Throughout the 20th century, several attempts were made to reconstruct industrial areas, but they were unsuccessful. Only in the late 1990s did certain processes begin that were associated with the relocation or closure of industrial enterprises. At the moment, the territory of the “gray belt” contains many monuments of cultural heritage that need protection from looters and unscrupulous owners. In the article, the following are indicated as the main directions of work with the belt’s industrial heritage: conservation, redevelopment, revitalization, etc. Special attention in the article is paid to museumification. In the author’s opinion, this is the most underestimated direction by the state authorities and private investors. Also in the article, the author formulates further prospects for the development of cultural practices in this segment of urban development.","PeriodicalId":115184,"journal":{"name":"The Issues of Museology","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132570161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu27.2021.112
Grigoriy I. Gerasimov
The article examines the museum object from the theoretical and methodological positions of the idealistic approach, placing the Human Creator at the center of culture and history. The museum object is characterized as a substance of nature from the theoretical point of view. Also, it is designed in accordance with the ideological content of human consciousness and having value from the point of view of the main ideas of society’s worldview. An explanation of the phenomenon of information of a museum object is provided in the article. The process of endowing a museum object with such a specific property as museum character is substantiated and the procedure for its creation is described. At the same time, it is indicated that the main properties of a museum object are not immanent, but they are instilled in it by the consciousness of a museum worker and a visitor. The value of a museum object is determined by the ideas of the dominant worldview; when it changes, the value of the museum object also changes. The degree of expression of the main properties of a museum object such as expressiveness, attractiveness, and associativity also depend on the ideas of the current worldview. Original objects that sufficiently express the main content of the subject are of the greatest value. From the authors’ positions, criticism of views on the most important properties of a museum object is made. From the standpoint of an idealistic approach, a definition of authenticity of a museum object is provided and the particular importance of authentic objects inthe current time of multimedia and interactive technologies being introduced into museum practices is emphasized. The article concludes that the idealistic approach, offering a solution to many problems in relation to a museum object, nevertheless, is not at the moment an all-encompassing theory that can explain it in all manifestations of creation and functioning. However, according to the author, in comparison with other theories the idealistic approach is able to give more answers to questions in this area than other museological concepts.
{"title":"The ideal essence of a museum object","authors":"Grigoriy I. Gerasimov","doi":"10.21638/spbu27.2021.112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu27.2021.112","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the museum object from the theoretical and methodological positions of the idealistic approach, placing the Human Creator at the center of culture and history. The museum object is characterized as a substance of nature from the theoretical point of view. Also, it is designed in accordance with the ideological content of human consciousness and having value from the point of view of the main ideas of society’s worldview. An explanation of the phenomenon of information of a museum object is provided in the article. The process of endowing a museum object with such a specific property as museum character is substantiated and the procedure for its creation is described. At the same time, it is indicated that the main properties of a museum object are not immanent, but they are instilled in it by the consciousness of a museum worker and a visitor. The value of a museum object is determined by the ideas of the dominant worldview; when it changes, the value of the museum object also changes. The degree of expression of the main properties of a museum object such as expressiveness, attractiveness, and associativity also depend on the ideas of the current worldview. Original objects that sufficiently express the main content of the subject are of the greatest value. From the authors’ positions, criticism of views on the most important properties of a museum object is made. From the standpoint of an idealistic approach, a definition of authenticity of a museum object is provided and the particular importance of authentic objects inthe current time of multimedia and interactive technologies being introduced into museum practices is emphasized. The article concludes that the idealistic approach, offering a solution to many problems in relation to a museum object, nevertheless, is not at the moment an all-encompassing theory that can explain it in all manifestations of creation and functioning. However, according to the author, in comparison with other theories the idealistic approach is able to give more answers to questions in this area than other museological concepts.","PeriodicalId":115184,"journal":{"name":"The Issues of Museology","volume":"94 1-2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125977737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu27.2019.106
Nikita A. Gusarov
{"title":"Interpretation of the past in the expositions of the Artillery Historical Museum in the 1930s","authors":"Nikita A. Gusarov","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu27.2019.106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu27.2019.106","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":115184,"journal":{"name":"The Issues of Museology","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116820114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：