The main purpose of this dissertation is to explore the characteristics of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Exhibition that source communities participate in. This dissertation will use the special exhibition ‘Arirang’ displayed by National Folk Museum of Korea in April, 2012 and exhibition ‘the Art...
The main purpose of this dissertation is to explore the characteristics of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Exhibition that source communities participate in. This dissertation will use the special exhibition ‘Arirang’ displayed by National Folk Museum of Korea in April, 2012 and exhibition ‘the Artisan: life-history and traditional knowledge’ displayed by the author and four other researchers in October 2012 as examples to accomplish this study’s purpose. The changes happening in the museum field are constantly transforming the museum’s image from the one that was formulated during the age of imperialism. It is the starting point for this dissertation that historical and cultural representation is reflected in the new museum movements and exhibitions. Aiming for considering the central ideologies and thoughts leading changes of the western museum field, this dissertation will present the difference of problems and issues made by Domestic museums. Ultimately, it will deliver the direction of museum exhibitions and offer details on two exhibitions -Arirang and the Artisan: life history and traditional knowledge- These exhibitions were selected for this dissertation because they attempted to display Intangible Cultural Heritage for the first time in the exhibition history of domestic museums. They tried to make not only change in a target of exhibition, but also participation of source communities, and in doing so suggested a new paradigm for the museum field. This dissertation will discuss the meanings of these changes using several subjects. These subjects are as follow: the problem of authority, the forms and contents of exhibition, how the relationship of the subject and the object in exhibition has changed, what issues regarding to the change have proposed, and what are the presented problems to be involved in-depth discussions. The reasons why Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibition is based on source communities have relevance to the properties which it has. Unlike Tangible Cultural Heritage, Intangible Cultural Heritage is centered on the subject of the transmission and shows how its role is important. The emphasis on the subject of the transmission the so-called intervention of source communities is essential in Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibitions. If people are excluded in the exhibition, it is obvious that Intangible Cultural Heritage that is ‘living cultural heritage’ is fossilized in the exhibition hall. I dealt with not only the problems of the relationship which newly appear and the issue of representations when source communities become the objects of the exhibition but also the method of reducing the problems that the author has thought. Especially, I try to improve an existing argument in which the relationship between the source community and the museum was characterized as the contact zone. I rather focus on the dynamic nature of participation of the source community in the exhibition and its cultural practices when the Intangible Cultural Heritage bearers take part in exhibition as active actors. I try to emphasize that the exhibition is to move from the politics of gazing to the field of narratives which is able to make a diverse interpretation by museum-goers. For arranging above discussion, theoretical issues selected by the author, the change of museum exhibitions based on the theoretical background and those meanings are shown below. 1) What kind of features does the form and contents of Intangible Cultural Heritage using source communities show? Intangible Cultural Heritage has a feature different from the original form because changes occur as soon as being is inherited. It means that the identity and the creativity which people or communities, the subject of transmitting Intangible Cultural Heritage have are the primary factors that determine the character of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Therefore, the exhibition plan of this embossed the subject of Intangible Cultural Heritage transmission, that is, source communities crucially. ‘Arirang’ and ‘the Artisan’ put to a practical use an in-situ system in order that emphasizes the features of Intangible Cultural Heritage in exhibition which is a way of representation of those. The in-situ system has remarkable reality and actuality; and then, it can be executable in the subsequent exhibition. In other words, ‘Arirang’ tried to convey the scene of Intangible Cultural Heritage transmission lively by letting the people be drawn into an exhibition hall and sing Arirang in person; besides, similarly to ‘Arirang’, in-situ system exhibition was composed by letting spectators observe and learn the work process of craftsmen together in ‘the Artisan’. Using video materials in the in-situ system exhibition in the way that shows the scene of Intangible Cultural Heritage transmission allows spectators to intact. There is a negative view that this in-situ sequent exhibition is for producing political effects; however, the couple of sequent exhibition dealt with in this dissertation have been emphasized because they tried to transmit the idea and the story of source communities as possible without addition and reduction. 2) How can the politics of authority and reproduction in exhibition change through intervention of the source community? Source community is related with the museum paradigm produced by the new thought generated in western society in the 1980s such as post-colonialism and postmodernism. At that time the museum of the West worried about the problem of the subject and the object in an exhibition. They looked around their brutality that they commit to other people under name of ‘the survey of anthropology’ during the time of imperialism. The Western museum set up other people that were the object in exhibition and study as now location, source community. New paradigm of museum exhibition accomplished the change through exhibition factor of new concept as source community in the North American. In Europe, when the new museology appeared, there was a big wave of change in the planning of exhibitions. The change occurred in these two areas had different backgrounds and their terms were not identical but under the change they had the common premise in trying to manage exhibitions that focused on people. In the socio-cultural flow, the appearance of source community was a critical role to form a new frame in exhibition. Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibition becoming involved with source community emphasizes the importance of the transmission subject of Intangible Cultural Heritage and it is planned toward helping understanding of cultural heritage through these exercises. Especially ‘Arirang’, the sequent exhibition involved with members of source communities functions as a tool for conveying the message that Arirang is a universal and casual song of the Korean people through solidifying collective conscience, ‘us’. 3) What can the change of relationship between the subject and the object in exhibition as ‘contact zone’ reveal about the source community participants? Finally exploring relationship between the subject and the object in exhibition, we cited the concept of ‘the museum as contact zone’ that Clifford refer to. At that time I analyze problems in artifacts and interpretation and problems about cultural practices of the subject of transmission in Intangible Cultural Heritage. For a long time the task of museums was to preserve and protect past remains with a focus on politicization of historical memory. Dignity and authority of the museum as the exhibition manager were building their stronghold. There was an opposition to the idea that the museum was the authority of history, cultural education and interpretation that anyone dare not think of covet should change and also there was a new suggestion. Especially in the case of western part, there were many changes in museum exhibitions because postcolonial theories were on the rise. The museum tried to produce exhibitions standing for native people’s position and focusing on native people’s voice. These changes pulled down the vertical power structure between the subject and the object in exhibition that was formed in the time of imperialism, and their correlation became an important factor in museum exhibition. I judged that this new frame has some problems in proceeding the actual exhibition. Especially the problem of reciprocity can happen anytime between the subject and the object in an exhibition as far as the museum exhibition functions as a contact zone. In the case of Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibition, a source community so called the transmission subject of Intangible Cultural Heritage represents their situation and voices strongly through contact zone as exhibition. Sometimes it is apprehended that there can be conflicts between them and the exhibition manager over different opinions. Also I can find that the exhibition of source community that was the purpose of minimizing authority of curator and achieving ‘democratization’ in the exhibition nearly makes a new composition of power. It is possible for the exhibition manager to use the source community as a tool for conveying the curator’s intention dramatically. These problems are revealed in ‘Arirang’ and ‘the Artisan’. Unlike act of exhibition that the artifact meets people and ‘people relocate the artifact as they want.’ This problem is a matter of course as source community intervenes. Especially in the case of ‘Arirang’ which focuses on ‘politics of seeing’ as claiming for ‘code exhibition’, the conflict between exhibition manager and source community and the probability that source community can be used as dramatically conveying tool was high. In order to minimize these problems in ‘the Artisan’, we tried to make a new frame for Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibition which focuses on narrative knowledge. It means that a visual exhibition changes into an auditory exhibition. It tries to show the importance of ‘savoir narratives’ told by Liotar. Also it tried to find out a methodical solution that narrows the conflict with source communities. In order to narrow a gap between the group of the object in an exhibition–source community-and exhibition manager, sufficient consultation is necessary. I can find out clues for solution such as having enough time such as anthropological participant observation, constant friendly interviews and formation of rapport. And then I tried this in ‘the Artisan’. As giving all list and method of performance to source community, I tried to reduce possible conflicts with the source community. Finally, the success or failure of an exhibition depends on the ‘making relationship’ between the source community and the curator when the former takes part in exhibition. keyword : Intangible Cultural Heritage, source community, museum exhibition, museum anthropology, contact zone, artisan, life-history, traditional knowledge, Arirang
The main purpose of this dissertation is to explore the characteristics of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Exhibition that source communities participate in. This dissertation will use the special exhibition ‘Arirang’ displayed by National Folk Museum of Korea in April, 2012 and exhibition ‘the Artisan: life-history and traditional knowledge’ displayed by the author and four other researchers in October 2012 as examples to accomplish this study’s purpose. The changes happening in the museum field are constantly transforming the museum’s image from the one that was formulated during the age of imperialism. It is the starting point for this dissertation that historical and cultural representation is reflected in the new museum movements and exhibitions. Aiming for considering the central ideologies and thoughts leading changes of the western museum field, this dissertation will present the difference of problems and issues made by Domestic museums. Ultimately, it will deliver the direction of museum exhibitions and offer details on two exhibitions -Arirang and the Artisan: life history and traditional knowledge- These exhibitions were selected for this dissertation because they attempted to display Intangible Cultural Heritage for the first time in the exhibition history of domestic museums. They tried to make not only change in a target of exhibition, but also participation of source communities, and in doing so suggested a new paradigm for the museum field. This dissertation will discuss the meanings of these changes using several subjects. These subjects are as follow: the problem of authority, the forms and contents of exhibition, how the relationship of the subject and the object in exhibition has changed, what issues regarding to the change have proposed, and what are the presented problems to be involved in-depth discussions. The reasons why Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibition is based on source communities have relevance to the properties which it has. Unlike Tangible Cultural Heritage, Intangible Cultural Heritage is centered on the subject of the transmission and shows how its role is important. The emphasis on the subject of the transmission the so-called intervention of source communities is essential in Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibitions. If people are excluded in the exhibition, it is obvious that Intangible Cultural Heritage that is ‘living cultural heritage’ is fossilized in the exhibition hall. I dealt with not only the problems of the relationship which newly appear and the issue of representations when source communities become the objects of the exhibition but also the method of reducing the problems that the author has thought. Especially, I try to improve an existing argument in which the relationship between the source community and the museum was characterized as the contact zone. I rather focus on the dynamic nature of participation of the source community in the exhibition and its cultural practices when the Intangible Cultural Heritage bearers take part in exhibition as active actors. I try to emphasize that the exhibition is to move from the politics of gazing to the field of narratives which is able to make a diverse interpretation by museum-goers. For arranging above discussion, theoretical issues selected by the author, the change of museum exhibitions based on the theoretical background and those meanings are shown below. 1) What kind of features does the form and contents of Intangible Cultural Heritage using source communities show? Intangible Cultural Heritage has a feature different from the original form because changes occur as soon as being is inherited. It means that the identity and the creativity which people or communities, the subject of transmitting Intangible Cultural Heritage have are the primary factors that determine the character of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Therefore, the exhibition plan of this embossed the subject of Intangible Cultural Heritage transmission, that is, source communities crucially. ‘Arirang’ and ‘the Artisan’ put to a practical use an in-situ system in order that emphasizes the features of Intangible Cultural Heritage in exhibition which is a way of representation of those. The in-situ system has remarkable reality and actuality; and then, it can be executable in the subsequent exhibition. In other words, ‘Arirang’ tried to convey the scene of Intangible Cultural Heritage transmission lively by letting the people be drawn into an exhibition hall and sing Arirang in person; besides, similarly to ‘Arirang’, in-situ system exhibition was composed by letting spectators observe and learn the work process of craftsmen together in ‘the Artisan’. Using video materials in the in-situ system exhibition in the way that shows the scene of Intangible Cultural Heritage transmission allows spectators to intact. There is a negative view that this in-situ sequent exhibition is for producing political effects; however, the couple of sequent exhibition dealt with in this dissertation have been emphasized because they tried to transmit the idea and the story of source communities as possible without addition and reduction. 2) How can the politics of authority and reproduction in exhibition change through intervention of the source community? Source community is related with the museum paradigm produced by the new thought generated in western society in the 1980s such as post-colonialism and postmodernism. At that time the museum of the West worried about the problem of the subject and the object in an exhibition. They looked around their brutality that they commit to other people under name of ‘the survey of anthropology’ during the time of imperialism. The Western museum set up other people that were the object in exhibition and study as now location, source community. New paradigm of museum exhibition accomplished the change through exhibition factor of new concept as source community in the North American. In Europe, when the new museology appeared, there was a big wave of change in the planning of exhibitions. The change occurred in these two areas had different backgrounds and their terms were not identical but under the change they had the common premise in trying to manage exhibitions that focused on people. In the socio-cultural flow, the appearance of source community was a critical role to form a new frame in exhibition. Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibition becoming involved with source community emphasizes the importance of the transmission subject of Intangible Cultural Heritage and it is planned toward helping understanding of cultural heritage through these exercises. Especially ‘Arirang’, the sequent exhibition involved with members of source communities functions as a tool for conveying the message that Arirang is a universal and casual song of the Korean people through solidifying collective conscience, ‘us’. 3) What can the change of relationship between the subject and the object in exhibition as ‘contact zone’ reveal about the source community participants? Finally exploring relationship between the subject and the object in exhibition, we cited the concept of ‘the museum as contact zone’ that Clifford refer to. At that time I analyze problems in artifacts and interpretation and problems about cultural practices of the subject of transmission in Intangible Cultural Heritage. For a long time the task of museums was to preserve and protect past remains with a focus on politicization of historical memory. Dignity and authority of the museum as the exhibition manager were building their stronghold. There was an opposition to the idea that the museum was the authority of history, cultural education and interpretation that anyone dare not think of covet should change and also there was a new suggestion. Especially in the case of western part, there were many changes in museum exhibitions because postcolonial theories were on the rise. The museum tried to produce exhibitions standing for native people’s position and focusing on native people’s voice. These changes pulled down the vertical power structure between the subject and the object in exhibition that was formed in the time of imperialism, and their correlation became an important factor in museum exhibition. I judged that this new frame has some problems in proceeding the actual exhibition. Especially the problem of reciprocity can happen anytime between the subject and the object in an exhibition as far as the museum exhibition functions as a contact zone. In the case of Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibition, a source community so called the transmission subject of Intangible Cultural Heritage represents their situation and voices strongly through contact zone as exhibition. Sometimes it is apprehended that there can be conflicts between them and the exhibition manager over different opinions. Also I can find that the exhibition of source community that was the purpose of minimizing authority of curator and achieving ‘democratization’ in the exhibition nearly makes a new composition of power. It is possible for the exhibition manager to use the source community as a tool for conveying the curator’s intention dramatically. These problems are revealed in ‘Arirang’ and ‘the Artisan’. Unlike act of exhibition that the artifact meets people and ‘people relocate the artifact as they want.’ This problem is a matter of course as source community intervenes. Especially in the case of ‘Arirang’ which focuses on ‘politics of seeing’ as claiming for ‘code exhibition’, the conflict between exhibition manager and source community and the probability that source community can be used as dramatically conveying tool was high. In order to minimize these problems in ‘the Artisan’, we tried to make a new frame for Intangible Cultural Heritage exhibition which focuses on narrative knowledge. It means that a visual exhibition changes into an auditory exhibition. It tries to show the importance of ‘savoir narratives’ told by Liotar. Also it tried to find out a methodical solution that narrows the conflict with source communities. In order to narrow a gap between the group of the object in an exhibition–source community-and exhibition manager, sufficient consultation is necessary. I can find out clues for solution such as having enough time such as anthropological participant observation, constant friendly interviews and formation of rapport. And then I tried this in ‘the Artisan’. As giving all list and method of performance to source community, I tried to reduce possible conflicts with the source community. Finally, the success or failure of an exhibition depends on the ‘making relationship’ between the source community and the curator when the former takes part in exhibition. keyword : Intangible Cultural Heritage, source community, museum exhibition, museum anthropology, contact zone, artisan, life-history, traditional knowledge, Arirang
주제어
#무형문화유산 소스커뮤니티 박물관인류학 박물관전시 컨텍트존 아리랑 장인
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.