{"title":"请向前退!论icom“布拉格博物馆定义”工作中的参与政策","authors":"M. Lorenc","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0016.0224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ICOM’s decision to revise the museum definition\nvalid as of 2007 was accounted for with the need\nto adjust the existing statutory phrasing to meet the challenges\nmuseums face in the 21st century. Having adjourned\nthe vote on the new definition at the Extraordinary General\nAssembly in Kyoto in 2019, the organisation suffered a leadership\ncrisis. In late 2020, in order to reform the management,\na new methodology of working on the definition was\nintroduced. Its foundation was to be sought in participatory\npolicy, namely redistribution of authority. Interestingly,\nthis approach was facilitated by the application of remote\ncommunication forced by the COVID-19 pandemic. In harmony\nwith the adopted time schedule the extensive and\nmulti-stage process was to climax with the vote on the adoption/\nrejection of the new museum definition during the\nsubsequent Extraordinary General Assembly in Prague on\n24 August 2022. As a result of the participation in consultations\nof 126 out of the 178 eligible Committees, the ‘Prague\nmuseum definition’ was phrased as a compromise between\nthe 2007 statutory definition valid until then and the ‘Kyoto\ndefinition’. On the essential issues, i.e., answering the question:\n‘what is a museum?’, it actually retained the earlier regulation:\na museum is a not-for-profit permanent institution.\nThis yielded the question about the purposefulness of the\nworks conducted in 2020–2022, based on the new participation\nparadigm, which the present paper attempts to answer.\n\n","PeriodicalId":36577,"journal":{"name":"Muzealnictwo","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"WITHDRAW FORWARD, PLEASE! ON\\nPARTICIPATION POLICY IN ICOM’S WORKS\\nON THE ‘PRAGUE MUSEUM DEFINITION’\",\"authors\":\"M. Lorenc\",\"doi\":\"10.5604/01.3001.0016.0224\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ICOM’s decision to revise the museum definition\\nvalid as of 2007 was accounted for with the need\\nto adjust the existing statutory phrasing to meet the challenges\\nmuseums face in the 21st century. Having adjourned\\nthe vote on the new definition at the Extraordinary General\\nAssembly in Kyoto in 2019, the organisation suffered a leadership\\ncrisis. In late 2020, in order to reform the management,\\na new methodology of working on the definition was\\nintroduced. Its foundation was to be sought in participatory\\npolicy, namely redistribution of authority. Interestingly,\\nthis approach was facilitated by the application of remote\\ncommunication forced by the COVID-19 pandemic. In harmony\\nwith the adopted time schedule the extensive and\\nmulti-stage process was to climax with the vote on the adoption/\\nrejection of the new museum definition during the\\nsubsequent Extraordinary General Assembly in Prague on\\n24 August 2022. As a result of the participation in consultations\\nof 126 out of the 178 eligible Committees, the ‘Prague\\nmuseum definition’ was phrased as a compromise between\\nthe 2007 statutory definition valid until then and the ‘Kyoto\\ndefinition’. On the essential issues, i.e., answering the question:\\n‘what is a museum?’, it actually retained the earlier regulation:\\na museum is a not-for-profit permanent institution.\\nThis yielded the question about the purposefulness of the\\nworks conducted in 2020–2022, based on the new participation\\nparadigm, which the present paper attempts to answer.\\n\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":36577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Muzealnictwo\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Muzealnictwo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0016.0224\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Muzealnictwo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0016.0224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
WITHDRAW FORWARD, PLEASE! ON
PARTICIPATION POLICY IN ICOM’S WORKS
ON THE ‘PRAGUE MUSEUM DEFINITION’
ICOM’s decision to revise the museum definition
valid as of 2007 was accounted for with the need
to adjust the existing statutory phrasing to meet the challenges
museums face in the 21st century. Having adjourned
the vote on the new definition at the Extraordinary General
Assembly in Kyoto in 2019, the organisation suffered a leadership
crisis. In late 2020, in order to reform the management,
a new methodology of working on the definition was
introduced. Its foundation was to be sought in participatory
policy, namely redistribution of authority. Interestingly,
this approach was facilitated by the application of remote
communication forced by the COVID-19 pandemic. In harmony
with the adopted time schedule the extensive and
multi-stage process was to climax with the vote on the adoption/
rejection of the new museum definition during the
subsequent Extraordinary General Assembly in Prague on
24 August 2022. As a result of the participation in consultations
of 126 out of the 178 eligible Committees, the ‘Prague
museum definition’ was phrased as a compromise between
the 2007 statutory definition valid until then and the ‘Kyoto
definition’. On the essential issues, i.e., answering the question:
‘what is a museum?’, it actually retained the earlier regulation:
a museum is a not-for-profit permanent institution.
This yielded the question about the purposefulness of the
works conducted in 2020–2022, based on the new participation
paradigm, which the present paper attempts to answer.