Skip to main content
Monthly Archives

January 2011

Should museums help us live better lives?

By Biomedicine in museums

Alain de Botton is an object of dismay to many philosophers because he doesn’t comply with the ritual behaviours of professional philosophy.

But for all of us who don’t consider the publication of peer reviewed articles in academic journals as the fundamental purpose of philosophy, his comments on current human affairs are often refreshing and thought provoking.

A while ago he suggested, in his weekly column in BBC News, that arts and humanities departments should consider offering people guidance how to live, rather than just provide tools for critical thinking. The commentators were divided into those who thought he was in principle onto something and those who thought he was just insane.

Last Friday, de Botton did the trick again, now on the topic of museums. His point of departure for this column is the widely spread suggestion that museums (i.e., art museums; he doesn’t mention other kinds of museums) function as our time’s secular version of temples and churches.

However, in one crucial aspect, museums seem to refuse to play the role of secular temples: they seem to be incapable of linking their exhibitions and objects to “the needs of our souls”:

They don’t do enough with the treasures they have because they present them to us in bland academic ways that fail to engage with the real potential of art, which is — I argue — to change us for the better.

Drawing on Hegel, who defined art as “the sensuous presentation of ideas”, de Botton suggests that “good art is the sensuous presentation of those ideas which matter most to the proper functioning of our souls, and yet which we are most inclined to forget”. Which, in his understanding, helps us answer what a museum should be, viz.:

a machine for putting before us pictures, photographs and statues that try to change us, that propagandise on behalf of ideas like kindness, love, faith and sacrifice. It should be a place to convert you.

At first sight, it looks like de Botton has become a religious convert. But that’s not the case (he claims he’s “a complete atheist”) and that’s not the point of his argument. He’s just “curious”, he says, about the approach churches take towards art — i.e., “not to put pretty things in front of us, but to use pretty things to change us”.

Accordingly, de Botton suggests that the modern secular museum might allow itself to be inspired by a secular version of the Christian approach to art: “What if they too decided that art had a specific purpose — to make us good and wise and kind — and tried to use the art in their collections to prompt us to be so?” What if museums gave up their neutral, distant stance and asked visitors to “look at this image and remember to be patient”, or “use this sculpture to meditate on what you too could do to bring about a fairer world”?

In short, de Botton wants museum curators “dare to reinvent their spaces so that they can be more than dead libraries for the creations of the past” and to “co-opt works of art to the direct task of helping us to live: to achieve self-knowledge, to remember forgiveness and love and to stay sensitive to the pains suffered by our ever troubled species and its urgently imperilled planet”.

I can easily imagine how many of my museum colleagues might think Alain de Botton is really insane (or at least outlandish, retro and generally embarassing). Isn’t a critical museum the true aim of a reflective and theoretically well-informed curatorial profession? (Cf. my earlier post on Piotr Piotrowski and the notion of ‘the critical museum’). Isn’t Alain de Botton just a reactionary crypto-Christian who want to turn museums back into a didactical regime worthy of the old GDR?

Well, maybe de Botton is a crypto-Christian. But even so, he has a point, and I think this point is valid, also for other kinds of museums than art museums.

Now, some kinds of museums do already live up to the call for edification. Many natural history museums, for example, more or less explictly see it as their aim to teach their visitors to take care of nature, help protect fauna and flora, help stop species extinction, and save the planet from climate catastrophies and ecosystem destruction. Such museums have more explicit educational and edifying aims.

So what about history and culture museums? Most such museums are probably more like art museums than natural history museums. They try to avoid being seen as didactic, educational and edifying. True, most such museums want to be critical in one way or the other — of racism, sexism, nationalism, capitalism, consumerism, militarism, Western cultural hegemonism, etc. etc — but they rarely present explicit positive alternatives of how we can negate the negative -isms and live better lives.

But is a ‘critical museum’ devoid of any explicit edifying ambitions the only alternative to a traditional nationalistic and high-culture agenda for historical and culture museums? Here Alain de Botton asks the right question, I think. How can we make exhibitions and display our artefacts in a way that change us and our society for the better? Without degenerating into teaching institutions!

Hvad er god videnskabelig praksis for formidling i medierne?

By Biomedicine in museums

Københavns Universitet har et såkaldt Praksisudvalg, som skal hjælpe med at “klargøre de eksisterende normer for god videnskabelig praksis”.

Nu har udvalget indkaldt til en konference den 23. marts om forskningsformidling med to temaer på dagsorden: formidlingsforpligtelsen og “varetagelse af god videnskabelig praksis ved formidling i medierne”.

Lad mig spare formidlingsforpligtelsen til en anden blogpost. Det som lige nu får mig til tastaturet, er Praksisudvalgets efter min mening forældede syn på formidling i medierne.

Den problemstilling udvalget rejser er, at “den diskussion, der føres i medierne, nødvendigvis må være mere enkel end den videnskabelige diskussion, der føres i artikler og på konferencer”, fordi medierne har et krav om “enkle budskaber i one-liner-form”. Ifølge udvalget er der ikke mulighed for “mellemregninger … i det offentlige rum”. Forskningsformidling i medierne indebærer derfor en “nødvendig simplifikation”.

Det er en underligt inaktuel problemstilling. Godt nok findes der stadigvæk et simplifikationsproblem i forbindelse med forskningsformidling igennem traditionelle trykte og især elektroniske massemedier. Men fremvæksten af sociale webmedier er jo ved at ændre medielandskabet radikalt. De traditionelle massemedier er på tilbagegang (eller som en ansøger til en kommunikationsstilling her på Medicinsk Museion sagde på telefon: der er jo ingen mellem 20 og 35 som læser aviser mere, alle er på webben). Og dermed ændres forudsætningerne for hele problemstillingen.

Forskere bruger i stigende udstrækning sociale webmedier i deres daglige forskningskommunikation. Der findes tusindevis af forskerblogs, fra helt nørdede fysik- og kemiblogs til brede og populære blogs som blander videnskabelige og politiske diskussioner. Der findes forskere på Twitter og der findes forskere på Facebook. Flere og flere er ved at opdage at man godt kan diskutere forskningsproblemer med en bredere kreds af ikke-forskere uden at inddrage journalister og talkshow-værter. Og generelt set er grænserne mellem intern forskningskommunikation og offentlig forskningskommunikation ved at blive mere porøse.

Påstanden at medierne stiller krav til simplificerede budskaber er således i store stykker misvisende. Den gælder kun det efterhånden begrænsede medieunivers der udgøres af traditionelle massemedier. De fleste sociale webmedier (muligvis undtagen Twitter, i hvert fald hvis man ser til de enkelte tweets) udgør i modsætning hertil netop offentlige rum, der tillader og endda opmunter til diskussion af “delikate spørgsmål, der kræver mange mellemregninger”, som Praksisudvalget udtrykker det.

Men udvalget virker ikke være klar over at mediebilledet har ændret sig igennem de sidste ti år. Og derfor gør programmet for konferencen et ret antikveret indtryk.

Den virkeligt interessante og fremadrettede problemstilling for mødet burde være: Hvordan kan forskerne bruge sociale webmedier til at udvikle en god forskningsformidlingspraksis?

Harry Marks

By Biomedicine in museums

Very sad news for all historians of medicine — Harry Marks, Institute for the History of Medicine at Johns Hopkins, has passed away. Although not a surprise to those who knew him, it’s very sad news. As Graham Mooney writes on the H-SCI-MED-TECH list, “Harry touched the lives of many people”. That’s the mark of a great scholar and intellectual.

Genetik 3.0? Nej, langt fra

By Biomedicine in museums

Jysk Medicinsk Selskab inviterer til aftensmøde næste torsdag under overskriften “Human genetik version 3.0”.

Nok er de hurtige i Jylland. Men genetik 3.0 er lige lovligt hurtigt. Det er ren begrebsinflation. Der er stadigvæk langt tilbage inden vi har fået implementeret genetik 2.0.

Den, som vil gå og fortælle dem det (og ellers lytte til de kloge humangenetiske hoveder i Århus) skal møde op i Århus Universitetshospitals auditorum A (i Skejby), indgang 6, torsdag den 3. marts 2011 kl. 19:00:

Det er ikke første gang i menneskehedens historie at teknologiske innovationer flytter teltpæle i vores selvforståelse, men mulighederne for at nærlæse indholdet i vores genom er nye — og resultaterne kan være både spændende og skræmmende!

(Tak til tip fra Nanna på Facebook)

The museum curator's dream: "Touch tells you what you need to know"

By Biomedicine in museums

There must be a literature on touch somewhere. Someone must have recorded in a diary or a letter the fugitive moment of what they felt when they picked up a special object or touched another being. There must be a trace of their hands somewhere. Touch tells you what you need to know. It tells you about yourself.

(de Waal, The Hare With Amber Eyes; thanks to Robert for alerting me)

Conference hodgepodge — everything 'laboratorial'

By Biomedicine in museums

Sometimes conferences are just too vague and unfocused for my taste — like the 7th Laboratory History Conference in Leuven, 6-8 June 2011, hosted by the Research Unit Cultural History after 1750 at the University of  Leuven:

The aim of the conference is to investigate the history of the modern laboratory in relation to its institutional environment, ranging over national styles of research, different disciplines and both formal and informal functions. We welcome contributions that address such topics as the early modern laboratory; the laboratory in the colonial and developing world; field stations, observatories, research vessels and other non-traditional laboratories; the practice of testing, measuring and quality control; biomedical laboratories and clinics; virtual laboratories and the cultural representation of the laboratory. We are also interested in papers that discuss strategies for documenting the history of the laboratory, such as oral sources, archives, photography, and ‘born digital’ records.

It covers a long time-span, many different disciplinary contexts, anything from field stations to virtual labs, etc. Could be interesting if there were a theoretical focus that could keep all this historical diversity together. Now it looks like a hodgepodge of everyting ‘laboratorial’. I think I’ll refrain (and by the way, deadline for abstracts was a week ago).

The two earlier conferences in the series were organised in Baltimore (2009) and Brookhaven (2010).

Nordisk netværk for studier i litteratur og medicin

By Biomedicine in museums

Jens Lohfert Jørgensen, som er postdoc ved Afdeling for Litteraturvidenskab, KU, planlægger et nordisk netværk for studier i litteratur og medicin. Formålet er at skabe et udvekslingsforum
for de forsknings- og undervisningsaktiviteter inden for vidensfeltet litteratur og medicin, der foregår i Norden. Internationalt findes der jo en række forskningscentre og litteratur- og medicinuddannelser og en del tidsskrifter, fx Literature & Medicine og Medical Humanities.

Indtil videre har 15 personer meldt sig som interesserede, men Jens ser gerne mange flere — og gerne både medicinere, litterater og andre forskere, der beskæftiger sig med Medical Humanities.

Netværket er ikke begrænset til skønlitterære genrer. Også dem som arbejder med såkaldte ‘ekstrafiktive genrer’, fx sygejournaler og patografier, er velkommen at være med. Dvs. med ‘litteratur’ menes her alle teksttyper, der betjener sig af narrative mønstre og/eller af retoriske
greb.

Jens har planer om tre workshops:

1. (forår 2012) om Forsknings- og undervisningspraksisser
Kortlægning af den hidtidige aktivitet inden for feltet i de nordiske lande med det formål at udpege interessefællesskaber og fremtidige muligheder. Blandt andet følgende temaer kan udgøre forankringspunkter for denne kortlægning:
– Metoder og koncepter: Hvordan forsker og underviser vi? Hvad er vores kernekoncepter?
– Kontekster: Hvilke faglige kontekster indgår denne forskning og undervisning i?
– Genrer: Hvilke teksttyper arbejder vi med?

2. (efterår 2012): Litteratur og medicin i en tekst- og sundhedsvidenskabelig kontekst
Hvordan kan litteratur og medicin forstået som et vidensfelt ‘informere’ den aktuelle nordiske forskning inden for henholdsvis tekst- og sundhedsvidenskab og vice versa? Hvordan forholder feltet sig til de øvrige discipliner inden for Medical Humanities, og hvordan forholder det sig til beslægtede forskningsområder som fx den kognitive forskning?

3. (forår 2013): Udarbejdelse af ansøgning om langsigtet international bevilling

Interesserede kan skrive til Jens på jenslj [at] hum.ku.dk med et par linjer om sig selv med fokus på interesser i vidensfeltet litteratur og medicin.

Jens Lohfert Jørgensen er litteraturhistoriker og forsvarede i 2009 ph.d.-afhandlingen ‘Sygdomstegn’, der handler om, hvordan tuberkulose har formet den danske forfatter J. P. Jacobsens forfatterskab. Han er nu postdoc på Københavns Universitet, hvor han arbejder på et projekt med titlen ‘Bakteriologisk modernisme: Litteratur og medicin 1850–1900’, der handler om de epistemologiske forbindelser mellem bakteriologiens og modernismens opståen inden for henholdsvis medicinen og litteraturen.

Any experiences with shtyle.fm?

By Biomedicine in museums

I’m getting more and more email-invitations to join the brand new tool shtyle.fm from people I trust (including Pnina). I’ve searched for some serious review of it, but cannot really find any. I don’t like logging in to sites with virtually non-exiting information about them. Can anyone help me out here?

Visual representations of professional cultures in biomedicine

By Biomedicine in museums

Medical museums around the world are filled with objects from biomedical laboratories and clinics. We are very good at representing the material culture of biomedicine.

But I’ve sometimes wondered how one can visually and materially display the different biomedical professions in a museum context. That is, not the things, and not the individuals, but the social and intellectual culture of biomedical laboratories, offices and clinics — the interaction between scientists, medical doctors, clinical assistants, nurses, admin staff, etc.

Now there will be an opportunity to get ideas abut how this could be done — namely two conferences on “Visual representations of professional cultures / Représentations visuelles de cultures professionnelles”:

Professional communities may be defined by their activities, their work methods, their practices and traditions, their paths and promotions, discourses, values and goals. Since these links exist, and distinguish one professional community from another, it is possible to speak of distinct professional communities.

These conferences will be devoted to the study of the visual representation of professional communities and cultures. We will explore the various interfaces between professional and national cultures, where they intersect or overlap, borrow and/or transpose.

Are professional cultures “adapted” to each national context, “localised”? Do regional “versions” exist? Or can we speak of an “international” professional culture, whatever the professional culture studied? (scientific, economic, financial, etc).

The first conference will be held at Université d’Evry-Val d’Essonne, 17-18 June 2011, and it will be followed by a second conference in June 2012. Proposals for thirty-minute papers in English or French should have been be submitted to the conference organisers — Stephanie Genty (stephanie.genty@univ-evry.fr) and Gwen Le Cor (gwen.le-cor@univ-paris8.fr) — before last Friday (but maybe they will accept abstracts a couple of days after the dead-line?).

Medicinsk Museions nye SWAT

By Biomedicine in museums

Siden nytår opererer Medicinsk Museion med en række særlige ad hoc-teams, til daglig kaldt SWAT. Der går rygter i museumsverden om, at disse ad hoc-grupper skulle være en smule voldsomme, men det er altså en misforståelse. SWAT er simpelthen en akronym for Special Wisdom and Thinking, som enhver kan forsikre sig ved en enkel søgning på den danske Wikipedia:

SWAT (Special Wisdom and Thinking Special Weapons and Tactics; oprindeligt Special Weapons Assault Team) er betegnelsen på specialenheder ved Medicinsk Museion i mange amerikanske politiafdelinger, der er trænet i at udføre særligt fagrlige operationer. Enhederne løser opgaver, som kræver en uddannelse og udrustning som almindelige forskere og kuratorer politibetjente ikke har. Eksempler på typiske opgaver er indtrængning i, samt rensning af, bygninger der huser særligt kedelige permanente udstillinger farlige kriminelle, eller nysgerrige kollegaer i museums- og forskerverden bevæbnede kriminelle der har behov for intellektuel udfordring vedrørende den moderne biomedicin og museer forskanset sig …