Museums and the Public Sphere

The papers represented a wide coverage of the major contemporary issues in the field of museums as sites of public debate. In particular, six of the papers presented new work which helped to refocus thinking, covering areas as divergent as the impasse between professional and managerial discourses, recent examples of self-censorship or scandal in the arts, commercial and IT discourses in the museum, and new cultural approaches to terror ‘as spectacle’. The latter was especially a new take on cultural public spheres.

None of the papers had been given published beforehand, though Dr Jennifer Barrett’s drew extensively on her PhD research, and Dianne McGowan’s was subsequently presented as part of her PhD mid-term review.

Re publication, my aim is to ask speakers to rewrite and expand their papers (which were limited to 30 minutes), including in response to the work of other speakers on the day, and in consideration of issues that came up in discussion. I believe all papers should be published together because they provided a solid coverage of the major issues.

In addition, Grazia Gunn and I have been pursuing the idea of continuing the debates begun on 29 July in the form of, initially, a couple of workshops in 2005 followed by a conference in 2006. Depending on the availability of funds, the workshops could potentially take place in Sydney and Melbourne, with a view to expanding the ‘circle’ of debate beyond the physical locus of the HRC, with the conference then to be held at the HRC. We already have a number of people interested in joining with us in this endeavour.

General response of participants

There was a great deal of enthusiasm from people. We packed a lot in (10 papers) and while it might have been good to drop one paper viz time constraints, ultimately I felt that each was an important part of the mix and therefore worth including. I heard no complaints about the number of papers. I was thanked by many people as they left, saying it had been a very stimulating and worthwhile day. One participant, who had traveled from Brisbane just for the day (others had come from Melbourne and Sydney) said she was glad she came and felt the one-day trip was extremely worth it. A staff member from the National Gallery emailed me to say thank you for an ‘energising’ day. There was definitely a buzz at the end of the day and, in fact, debate continued vigorously over drinks at University House, for a good couple of hours or more. There was a period of time (about 25 minutes as it turned out) at the end of the day for discussion and this was partly successful. I think people were tired and needed a drink to get thinking again, and so the debate continued on over drinks. There was some discussion after each session, which also continued vigorously over coffee/lunch.

Angela Philp
27 August 2004