The Memorial Museum: Diluent or Concentric Agent of the Museum Institution?

Overview

The term museum endures, for many, as much as a vast notion as a vague institution. Although defined by numerous professional organisations, the museum's boundaries remain blurred (Heumann, 1995, pp. 31–37). The purpose of this contribution is to examine the specificity of the memorial museum and, consequently, its place in relation to the museum institution. The notions of memorial museum and museum institution will be specified throughout it and their similarities and differences will serve as markers to distinguish and characterise both institutions. But are they truly separate institutions? Does one not overlap the other? If so, in which order and to what extent? Where then does the memorial museum stand? Is it just a sub-category of the museum institution as are, for example, history, science and art museums? Or is it an altogether separate institution of memory? By analysing the various notions of memory, this contribution defines the characteristics of these institutions. It will interpret what lies behind these characteristics so as to conclude whether the memorial museum either threatens the sole institution of the museum by further blurring its boundaries, or, on the contrary, helps to refocus the museum institution around its true essence: critical interpretation. In other words, is the memorial museum a diluent or concentric agent of the museum institution?

This article is developed from the article ‘On Memorial Museums: the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, a Case-Study’, originally published in 1998 in the Museological Review (Leicester University), No. 5, 46–57.

This article is developed from the article ‘On Memorial Museums: the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, a Case-Study’, originally published in 1998 in the Museological Review (Leicester University), No. 5, 46–57.

Notes

This article is developed from the article ‘On Memorial Museums: the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, a Case-Study’, originally published in 1998 in the Museological Review (Leicester University), No. 5, 46–57.