ICOM International Council of Museums ICOFOM International Committee for Museology Comité international pour la muséologie Museology and the Intangible Heritage Muséologie et le Patrimoine Immatériel Museologia y el Patrimonio Intangible Museologie und das immaterielle Erbe Edited by Hildegard K. Vieregg, Munich/Germany Co-editor: Ann Davis, Calgary/Canada ; Preprints Supplement ICOFOM STUDY SERIES - ISS 32 Munich/Germany and Brno/Czech Republic November 26 - December 05 2000 Museums-Padagogisches Zentrum MunchenContents of the supplement: Decarolis, Nelly (Argentina): Entro to tangible y lo intangible (Spanish) .. ‘Scheiner, Tereza Cristina (Brazil) Museology and Intangible Heritage: The Virtual Experience (English) vu ‘This supplement is part of COFOM Study Series $2 - ISS 32 ISBN of the whole issue: 3.929862 67 0Entre lo tangible y lo intangible Nelly Decarolis - Argentina 4. Introduceién En la imagen moderna del Universo, el espirtu y fa realidad se han conciliado y se condicionan mutuamente como una identidad titima entre jo ideal y lo real, Existe una solidaridad entre el cconocimiento féctico y ol que versa sobre los principios, entre lo tangible y fo intangible. EI lenguaie, ol mito, ia religion, el arte, a misica, la danza, las tradiciones y leyendas son partes constitutivas de ese Universo y forman los diversos hilos que tejen la complicada urdimbre de io intangible, esa red simbdlica que trasciende la esfera de la vida préctica y conoreta del hombre. La esencia de las cosas no depende de las circunstancias externas, depende de los valores que se les atribuyen. Ya Kant consideraba al espacio como la forma de nuestra ex- periencia externa y al tiempo como la de nuestra experiencia interna, de lo que se deduce que €en la interpretacién de su experiencia interna, el hombre tiene que abordar nuevos problemas ‘que difieren de los del mundo fisico-tangible. La conexién entre simbolo y objeto es algo natural y no convencional. El objeto tangible se enwuelve en formas linguisticas, en imagenes artisticas, en simbolos miticos, en rtos reigiosos, de tal manera que no se fo puede conocer sino a través de ellos mismos. ‘Como bien dice Cassirer “.. podemos empeftamnos en ver ‘La Escuela de Atenas’ de Rafael tan ss6lo como un fienzo cubierto de manchas de color ordenadas de un modo formal en ei espa- io, pero a partir de ese momento la obra de arte se reducira a un objeto mas entre muchos dtros. La diferencia sélo se restablecerd en el instante en que nos adentremos en la ‘repre- ‘sentacin’ del cuadro y nos entreguemos puramente a ella, a sus caracteristicas de ‘intangibt- lidad'. Son dos momentos fundamentales que, combinados y entrelazados, dan como resutta- do el todo del objeto cultural. Sus caracteristicas peculiares tienen una funcion representativa referida al objeto mismo. Nos encontramos asf frente a tres dimensiones que lo haoen formar parte del mundo de ia cultura: la dimension de su existencia fica, ta del objeto mismo repre- sSentado en ol mused y la de la valoracién personal de quien lo contempia, De este modo, en el objeto cultural concurren ‘lo tangible’ y ‘lo intangible’, porque no es s6lo su contenido objetivo, sino una actitud y una funcién del entendimiento las que conforman los rasgos que lo distinguen.* Siguiendo la linea de pensamiento de Ivo Maroevic, se podria decir que la significacién o el valor inmaterial que se asigna al objeto que integra el patrimonio cuttural es lo museal; que la musea- lidad comprende sus cualidades inmateriales y a la vez su propiedad de captar y documentar la realidad para convertila en otra realidad diferente, en un proceso que le permite vivir dentro de un contexto museoligico. El objeto de museo 0 musealia es, pues, una suma de significados y la museoiogia es la encar- ‘Stil unknown in the domain of the human sciences, heritage is a powerful representation, con- stituted and instituted from identitary perceptions. Linked or not to the geographical territory, it {s present in the sense of ownership that crosses the human body and soul, and appears (open- 'y or subtiy) in all games of memory, in all forms of Museum. Mistakenly related to the notion of ‘tho past, it is now perceived as ‘construction of the future’ and as such, used as instrument of resistance within social and political discourse. Museum and heritage have, thus, a special space in the ‘idearium’ of contemporary societies. Museology must, therefore, investigate the many forms of relationship between museum and heritage, in time and in space - and that includes the analysis of the different discourses and practices organized around them. Examples for analysis may be taken from the many tangible references of human action. But that will necessarily bring the need to understand the many ‘subtle ways by which society and nature interact, in the sphere of intangibility. ‘When researching the relationships between Museology and the constitution of the herttage of the future we must identify the cifferent pians of content that can effectively link each one of the meanings of Museum, Museology and Heritage to the contemporary's cultural context - starting ‘from representations existent in the imaginary of the societies. The investigation of new dimen- sions in the relationship Museum & Heritage should delineate subjects that will form the episthe- mic base for development of theoretical models of Museology - thus contributing to its inclusi- ‘on within the Theory of Knowledge, as a specific field or discipline. Analysis of such relationship within the system of contemporary thought may also contribute to add, to existent researches, a new scope: the knowledge of such relationship in its subtier dimension - the intangible. Nothing more adequate to the cuftural atmosphere of contemporary times, permeated by a crisscross of tendencies, manifestations and games of representations, and whose main characteristic is ciscontinuity of phenomena, not oniy in extension (globaliza- tion) but also in intensity (pluralization of representations and of symbolic structures). 2. Museology and the Secrets of the Imaginary The relationship between the Museum and the intangible heritage begins in the sphere of the imaginary. And here we should remind Bachelard, to whom imagination, more than the art of for- ming images, is the facuity of deforming the images supplied by perception. The imaginary ‘would consist, therefore, rather than the capacity to think, in the imagining capacity of percep- tion of Reality: to imagine is a process, not associated to images as such, which constitute a movement of stabilization of the imaginative capacity (or potency). To Bachelard, to percelve and to imagine are as antithetic as presence and absence. To imagine would mean to be absent (of Realty}, to throw oneself into the future, to move, through impulse, towards a lawless uni- ‘Verse. tts an eluding process, through which we can perceive the subtle shades of movement. ‘The continuous itinerary from reality to the imaginary allows us to perceive the immanence of ‘the imaginary in the Real, and to understand the experiences of transmutation of images into Poetic objects - drivers of the imagining psyche. In this sense, the act of imagining represents ‘an opening towards the unknown, which allows the mind to move beyond materiality and ever- yey tie. imagination will be made seductive in the measure that, as advises Nietzsche, wa restore all things to their own movement, abandoning what we see in favor of what we imagine, The ima- ination as trip: that is the movement, already recognized by the poets, in which we are inte- x‘Schelner: Museology and Intangible Heritage: The Virtual Experience rested - and that will allow us to understand imagination ‘as a psychological yonder" a type of precursory psyche, that projects into the essence of being. ‘The imagining function reveals itself in all human senses, as translated into permanent move- ment. To imagine is to use all the senses. Therefore, the element that better resembles the ima- gining function is the air - the element that allows movement to overcome substance. More than the vision, a purely cinematic movement, hopelessly linked to the matter (only see what is placed before me), the imagining game allows us to move beyond materiality, practicing a ‘psy- chology of the infinite air' through which all dimensions fade and we dip into ‘that non-dimen- sional matter that gives us the impression of an absolute intimate sublimation.” To imagine Is thus like a blow, which happens in total lightness, impregnated by subtle matters and movements that intercross all our senses. The imaginative capacity allows us the philoso- phical intuition of change and of movement, putting memory into permanent action, as an instru- ‘ment of elaboration of experiences. It is the opposite of the habit, which blocks creative imagi- nation, attributing value to permanence, Constricted into static supports of representation, the imagination becomes image, tus into an ‘object, and may be represented under tangible forms, possible of apprehending through Iitera- ture and art - where a thousand representations feed the illusion that its possible to apprehend, in permanence, that what is pure movement. And, driven by the desire of absolute permanen- ce, they end in the museums, where, forever enclosed in the body of objects, they offer an il sion of immortality. ‘The relationship among museum and imaginary begins, therefore, in the games of memory that, contribute to shape, in process, the ever-fluid Scenery of our inner museum. And itis reactuali- zed through the multiple processes of collective memory which, when attributing sense and specific value to the many Imaginary representations of human societies, seek to apprehend them in permanence - as ifit was possible to halt the instant, to possess the movement, to retain, in time that what i, in tsa, looting. This is the domain where we may recognize the existence of an ‘imaginary museum’, as men- tioned by Malraux’, a feeling that catalyzes the museum idea present in the collective memory, starting ‘trom the recognition of such representations. The imaginary museum precedes tha ‘museum-Institution - it is, before all, a ‘museum desire’, awaiting to be materialized through tan- gible representations, which we commonly label as ‘objects’. .~- But what is permanently there, behind materiality, is the endless human capacity to imagina- te, the continuous flow that allows us to apprehend Realty into poetics, and to draw countless. itineraries between the mind and the senses, as true ‘light dreams" - that begin in the mind and. travel all the roads of memory, in search of the wonderful and of the unknown. And since, in order to dream, it is necessary not to see, not to speak, the imagining capacity feeds of dream- like construction, ofthis itinerary that develops in fleeting lightness and that crosses all the spa- Ces of the mind, when the control of the body eludes our wil. ‘The true foundation of the Museum, is, therefore, intangibi sentations. ‘The attempt to represent such intangiblly in lightness and transience reminds us the myth of Mercury, the god whose feet don’t land on earth, yet possess wings that project him into space. ‘That's the fundamental Museum: fluid, aerial, always in movement, projecting itself in the space through dream and sensible feelings. Mercury, the god of movement, represents in his mobility the richness of lightness and of dynamic imagination - the principles of etemal youth. In this sense, more than making stop time in the ilusory materiality of the object, the Museum tran- scends time, in the infinite duration of the movement. “The idea of transcending time leads us to understand the more contemporary expression of the ‘Museum; that which takes place in virtuality tis in the virtual space that time transforms its own meanings, assuming the form of an eternal permanence - real time. It isno longer necessary to ‘count with the materiality of the object to retain in time our imagining capacity - it reveals in a ‘new relational instance: that of the human with the machine. which is in the base of all repre- ‘Bachelord, Gaston, Ai and Droama. Essay on the imagination of movement. Ibid, p. 10 Malraux, André. Le Musée Imagineire, Collection Folo/Essais. Pari: Galimerd, 1996. acheter, in op, ct. p. 15 : Martins Fonte, 1990, p. 6‘Schelner: Museclogy and Intangible Heritage: The Virtual Experience 3. Virtual Reality and Intagible Heritage Michel Serres reminds us that we live, today, in the kingdom of information - in a great web of messages, where all of us act as messengers. In this fluid and volatile world, all substances quickly change, moving through subtie shades and appearances that soon may disappear. And, although some traditional works remain, although we still work the land and the matter, today we are, above all, messengers: we inhabit-communication spaces, virtual spaces, difficult to Fepresent in traditional systems and codes. The world appears to us no longer as an inert orga- nism, of which we have relative domain, but as a live organism, endowed with transforming metabolism and a subtle nervous system, through which information vibrates. ‘This new relationship with reality subverts the traditional relationship with space, as old as ‘human civilization - and reminds us that the civilzatory process has developed in specific spa- ces. In the civiizatory dance of humankind on planet Earth, economy, power and sovereignty ‘could be always drawn in the Atlas, in successive plans of occupation and displacement. --- How fo understand the Museum in this de-territorialized ambience, where a new, a-cantered universal sprays every place, and all things, with events? Where should the Museum be sftua- ted, in a sphere where all that exists are complex connections, and where everything is relative? ‘And where a new harmonic law, expressed into universal singularities, invades traditional uni- ‘versal values such as time, space and language? In this new universe, which Serres denominates ‘universe of Pantropy’, everything is simulta neously in the center and in the margins. Here awakes Utopia; we live and think in the hope that ‘this world, natural through ‘physis’ (nature) and cultural trough ‘logos? (our thoughts), makes our images become exact and precise, so that we may, at last, listen to each other and be able to lead an ethical existence, in permanent peace ... ‘Today, the imbalance of Really is assured by means of messages and messengers. It's as ifthe world could not exist “without this tessiture of continually intermixed relationships"*, where things prolong themselves into the universe. A second utopia appears and it is the bellef in the harmony between this emergent culture and nature in process. We believe that artificial inteli- gence is recent, while we have always been artificial in a considerable part of our capacities, Emissaries, receivers, we are constantly building simulacra so that they think for us, to us and through us. But what still kesps human bonding is the natural contract, through which all artifi- ‘ial intelligence rofers to the natural links between humankind and nature. Anew relationship arises, between the humane, the machine and the fragment of time, space and matter where relations dwell. In this new environment, there is potency for encompassing ‘the sum of all the means in all networks - the immense and total memory of things: all images, all scenarios, all experiences. ‘The object, we believe, may reach the limits of the world. But this Is the same world where we hhave always been, and what we believe to be new objects are nothing more than images - a vit= tual elusion. Virtuality is, thus, the right environment to protect and develop intangible heritage and reality, ‘The development of new media and the global networks make us face virtual imagetic as anew phenomenon, which suppresses Reality. in this thoroughly visual universe, the magic force of images gives us the illusion that Reality is only what we see before us. Imagetic thus engenders ‘4 New reality, recognizable through its infinite and vertiginous capacity of creation, dynamiza- tion, change and reproduction of images of all types - to the point where we believe that reality disappropriates itself - and even forget that the true capacity of imagination comes from the hurtan mind. The imagetic world develops beyond symbolic orders - which sweetly become ‘great museum pieces’, under the effect of different operations of classification and documentation. It is a self- Teproducing world, which allows all sorts of operations of ganeration and reproduction of ima- ges. And, although images cannot always substitute objects or life expressions existent in a ter- ritory, the force of the imagetics leans in its capacity to retain and, at the same time, modify the registers of the realty. And that happens not only with the testimonies of external reality, but also with a muttiplicity (never before possible) of representations of our inner world - our symbolic universe. 10 Serres, n op. Cit, p. 181 xillScheiner: Museology and Intangible Heritage: The Virtual Experience Imagetics gives us, though, the illusion of being masters of our own memories: they become wanted, expected, manipulated memories - as if it was possible to dive into our own dreams and touch our inner museum. This illustonal perspective, we have said before, leads us to the fantasy that reality is an integral part of our minds. This is the risk of immersion into virtual reality: we start believing that the only possible realty is ‘hat which drives from our minds to the computer, and vice-versa. It is not by chance that so many specialists believe, today, that the only possible museum is the virtual museum - and that ‘Museology is nothing but a branch of information Science ‘That is the environment where we will meet the newest face of the Museum: the virtual face, just capable of existing in the screen of the computer, in the intersection of communication nets. ‘Announced by the experiences of modem art and of photography, cinema, TV and video, the virtual museum could already be glimpsed through the images crystallized in printing, in foil and in fim - endlessly copied, enlarged, reshaped, fragmented, decomposed and reuri And, if printing and photography have enabled material reproduction of images, the fim and the video represent a step ahead in this process - what matters now is no longer the support, but that fantastic world that is projected through light, color and movement in every dasired sup- port: walls, roofs, ground, the man’s own body. And, although nor even here the material sup- port can be abstracted, fim and video demonstrate that yes, it is possible to represent (and to interpret) the world without materia ‘objects’. The moving image ilustrates, represents, interprets, recreates - presentifies the event. As the old muses, it brings things into presence and eludes forgetfulness. it also documents: in its virtua- Ity itis a total object. Moving Images have become a powerful element of any museum. They make us understand that itis not only possible to presentify the word in the museum, but presentify the museum into the world as well, Here, vehicles already interconnect and intermediate, the limits between tech- niques become subtle. And society acknowledges that is possible that each individual posses- ‘ses a synthesized museum: not just the reproduction of collection objects - the Baroque image, the piece of furniture, the Dodo bird, the Gloconda - but also the imagetic representation of the museum itself. And gach of us is now able to promenade through a museum's ambience, walk ‘through exhibitions; to assist folkloric festivals; or watch the Indians dance. All representations of nature and culture can be turned into museum objects - and even the nature itset, f we con- sider imagatic reproductions of natural heritage. Each person tums into a partner of the museum, and even an actor his/her mind is spatially pro- ected onto the scene. And it is finally possible to understand why natural sites are museums: ‘with our eyes we can visit the lguazii fais, the Grand Canyon, the African reserves - we are able to be only half a yard from the panthers, dine with the Lap and participate of the Quarup. By means of multimedia, museums become mass vehicles - multifaceted spaces, where tradi- tional objects are relativized by the plurality of visual and sensorial stimuli. They are, more than ‘vor, ‘simulation machines", which try - to a certain extent - to preserve, control and dominate reality. The same applies to the television, where today the museum is simultaneously taken as scenery, theme and actor: it makes use of the television as communication language, while the ‘TV divuiges, to the world, in past or in real time, museurn action. .~- But this is not yet the virtual museum: itis just the use of modem and contemporary media {0 improve museum communication. The usa of multimedia or of the new technologies of infor- mation in existent museums does not modify the fact that they are articulated in defined spa- ces, and regulated either by the time of the object, or by social or natural time. The virtual museum takes shape and gains existence only through the screen of the computer. Legitimate representation of contemporary times, it inherits the face of contemporary culture: impersonal, it may be the one-author museum, or the result of a collage; a-temporal, it exists in ‘the present - in realtime; immaterial, it independs of the previous existence of testimonies, being able to appear through the presentification of the imagining capacity of the humane. De-territo- fialized, it may exist only within one computer - and simultaneously everywhere, reaching the ‘world through the internet. 11 Huyeeen, Ancreas. Escaping fom Amnesia, The Museum as mass culture, Tad, Valéla Camargo. In: Revista do SPHAN, ane NV p. 35 xV‘Scheiner: Museology and Intangible Heritage: The Virtual Experience tts the antithesis of mass culture, being accessed only through isolated acts, which: depend upon individual perceptual time. The virtual museum doesn't have'a model - itis. continually recreated, through its creators’ will, either through movements of the mouse or through corporal movements made with virtual rea- lity devices - which allow tteral immersion of the human body into the image. To exist in image, to be a virtual body, simultaneously in a no-place, in a no-time - that is the absolute contem- porary human desire: being in the absurd world of simuation represents immortality - we may fly, fall into the deep, make star wars, fall in love with Jessica Rabbit. This is a world were the human will never die, ..- Intangible forces have finally taken, the museum. Maraux was right, and we may finally have in our hands the total imaginary museum (the entire world's memory and heritage, now made Intangible by means of the new technologies). And. we may use them as we please. making all kinds of experiences to match our imagination. ig That is the fascination of the virtual museum, where each Louvre can be multiplied into infinite Pathways, and each of us can be simuttaneously Mozart and the cowboy of the American west ~ with the body, the age and the voice that we choose. Where heritage mey be continually rege- erated, and the Victoria from Samotrace may, at last, have arms, In the virtual museum ~ absolute Narcissus, each humane is simultaneously creator and-crea- ture of his/her own kaleidoscope of representations. The museum is no longer rhirror, represen- tation or interpretation: itis a purely creative environment, where, by the povier of infinite repe- tition, the human mind may:project itself onto the machine, eluding nature, the body, time and space to be'simultaneously the Same, the Other, the Double, the Shade, Love, Life. and Death.