[Museum] Voltar a definir Museu e Museologia?

[Pedro Manuel Cardoso <mty@mail.tmn.pt>]

 

 

Se o ICOM Portugal aceitasse a sugestão do Dr. Luís Raposo não ficaria numa posição isolada e descontextualizada.

Ficaria no grupo da frente, dos que na actualidade, debatem sobre esta «[re]questão da museologia e dos museus». Não é de bom senso nesta mensagem alongar muito as referências que o comprovam. Apenas referirei três.

            Este debate esteve presente em 1998 na “Reunião de Roma” promovida pelo J. Paul Getty Trust e pelo Smithsonian Institute, onde sessenta destacados responsáveis pela museologia e por museus foram convidados a debater o tema, passo a citar, “The Conditions for Culture and Cultural Institutions at the End of the Twentieth Century”, dando origem em 2006 ao artigo de Charles Saumarez Smith, “The Future of the Museum”. Uma preocupação também partilhada pelo Comité Consultivo do ICOM, na reunião que promoveu em Paris em 2003, com o objectivo de “(....) promover uma reflexão sobre a definição de museu” (Brinkman, 2003). Ou ainda, na escolha que a Rockefeller Foundation e o Smithsonian Institute fizeram para o tema do programa de bolsas de estudo para o triénio 2004 – 2007 (“Theorizing Cultural Heritage”), por considerarem que “Apesar da crescente popularidade nos meios institucionais e no meio empresarial, o conceito de «património cultural» está sub-teorizado” (Cardoso, 2010).

            Não tenho competência para comentar as mensagens que foram colocadas por Humberto Rendeiro, Inês Câmara, Leonel Borrela e Luís Raposo. Mas, na minha modesta opinião, são um núcleo potente de problematização que permite serem já uma referência para o debate proposto por Luís Raposo.

            Talvez, para que não se caia numa oposição entre Museu/Museologia, e porque o argumento de Luis Raposo é muito pertinente, se pudesse aceitar as duas interrogações: "voltar a definir o museu" e "voltar definir a museologia". Não sei.

            Não resisto a lançar mais um pedaço de lenha para a fogueira, terminando com as considerações que Charles Saumarez Smith (2006) fez a propósito do “Futuro do Museu”:

- “The first principle is that museums need to represent the cult of the real. (….) There has been a strong movement in museums internationally to stress that museums are not about things, but about people, about people’s understanding and experience of past (Weil, 2002). But this is a category error because the original impulse of a museum is contained in the idea that it represents the cargo of the past on consignment into future and that we in the present are expected to be witnesses to these things which are in some way precious or special or beautiful or illuminating.” (p. 550).

- “The second principle is that museums should not necessarily be guided by the same principles as those of commerce. (….) I still believe the first question which should be asked is: «is this going to be a worthwhile and interesting exhibition?» Not, «is this going to pull in the largest number of people?». Institutions have a responsibility to treat the content of what they do as central to their activity, not just to act as vapid crowd-pullers. Paradoxically, institutions that are content-driven or, as the jargon goes, mission-driven are more likely to be successful, are more likely to attract support, than those institutions that are purely market-driven and aim to provide merely pap out the commercial marketplace (Saumarez Smith, 2002).” (p. 551).

- “The third principle is the importance of diversity. (….) If museums are confronted by a choice between the global and the local, then I hope that they will have the sense to choose the local, the opportunity to help to define what is different and special about a particular community and its history. (….) These are museums that are not in the forefront of new developments, are not necessarily well funded or especially innovative in their practices, but they have preserved a sense of integrity in what they do and communicate effectively the meaning and experience of life in the past just as powerfully as they do information about it. (….) Indeed, I feel as if I have lived through a whole series of erroneous, dystopian preconceptions about what was going to happen in the future. In the 1950’s, it was normal to believe in the inevitability of the advance of communism and of nuclear war. In the 1960’s, there was a mass belief that the word was changing forever. In the 1970’s, it was impossible not to believe in inexorable British decline, the sense of ghastly, post-imperial anguish and decay. In the 1980’s, a whole new set of orthodoxies took over: the ineluctable advance of capitalism, the belief in the supremacy of market forces. But suddenly, in the 1990’s, all over the world there were governments trying to achieve some sort of balance between issues of social responsibility and market forces. (….) So, rather than looking into the future and trying uncritically to follow in whatever direction the world appears to be going, it is more important to consult one’s conscience as to what are the essentials of museums, what lies at the heart of the experience of going to museums, and what is the irreducible core of looking at works of art or archaeology or social history.” (p. 552).

Talvez tenha chegado o momento de não termos receio de abordar estas questões em língua portuguesa, de sermos produtores de fontes primárias de conhecimento também em ‘museologia e museus’, exigindo de nós próprios o mesmo rigor científico e técnico que os melhores dos outros colocam quando o fazem.

 

Pedro Manuel Cardoso