I spent most of my first week here attending--and then teaching for--a University of Helsinki seminar on Current Trends in Museological Research, organized by my co-host Dr. Suzie Thomas (head of Museum Studies) and her colleague Nina Robbins. I was struck both by how different and familiar the scene felt. In some fundamental way the university system here is organized so differently from home that it's hard for me even to understand it. For starters, all the students (including grad. students) attend for free. (Suzie tells me that the majority of Finns have more than an undergrad. degree!) As well, in 2005 the country passed a law saying that at every museum at least the director and another employee must have a degree in Museum Studies (or for those already employed, comparable experience). That gives Museum Studies professors a clear mandate and job security. The teaching system is different, too. The students got a full course credit for the four (full) days of class (I think they are on a quarter system). And the students seem to have a much greater capacity to sit and pay attention to a lengthy talk. They/we heard several lectures during the week (including one from me about microhistory storytelling in exhibitions) and I saw hardly a fidget.
When the lecturing paused, though, things seemed familiar. Right away, the students were full of observations and questions. They were just waiting their turn. Most of the graduate students are currently working in museums (free tuition does not cover living expenses so they have to work), so they have a lot of experience to draw on. Their concerns were mostly similar to the ones we wrestle with in the U.S.--how to serve new audiences (we heard a Ph.D. presentation about a small art museum that partners with a Senior Citizen Club), interpretive authority (the pros & cons of using fictional narrators in exhibitions), how to decide what to accession into the collection (Nina Robbins is creating a "value assessment" tool for museum staff). In general, the students' work seemed more research-based (studying the work of museums) than our practice-based graduate programs, but similar issues were being addressed.
One moment did cause me to question whether I had heard right: Nina said that in Finland, the "most honorable way of disposal of an object" (what we call deaccessioning) has been "to demolish it"--to "break it into so many pieces that one can't reassemble it." This approach, she said, applies to works of art, too. Coming from people who have such a honed professional sense of responsibility to the future, this approach startled me. I asked Nina afterwards what lies behind the practice. She acknowledged that museums aren't eager to publicize their demolition of artifacts, but at the same time they feel a need to be responsible for an object for its entire lifespan. Is this, I wonder, an acknowledgement that, eventually, every object faces a "death," and it's seen as better to come at the hands of the institution charged with caring for it? Or am I misunderstanding completely? I'm going to ask others about this, and keep my ears open for these differences in our mostly so compatible professional practices.
Comments