The value of museum communication: the cases of the Paper and Watermark Museum in Fabriano and the Ascoli Piceno Papal Paper Mill Museum in Ascoli Piceno
© 2016 Budownictwo i Architektura. Publikacja na licencji Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Cytowanie: Budownictwo i Architektura, vol. 16(4) (2017) 049-058, ISSN 1899-0665, DOI: 10.24358/Bud-Arch_17_164_04
| Historia: | Opublikowano: | 09-01-2018 |
|---|
Streszczenie:
Guaranteeing the survival of cultural heritage, increasing its accessibility, both physical and intellectual, and the creation of countless benefits for different categories of stakeholders depends both on a perfect comprehension of the interests and abilities of users to take advantage of what is offered and, above all, on identifying and analysing the various types of value that can be attributed to it. According to Montella, there are three types of value that may be analysed for this purpose: a presentation value, informative in nature and inherent in the historical, cultural and possibly artistic value implicit in the heritage; a landscape value, extended to the context, inherent in the factual information services aimed at supporting policies of preventive and programmed conservation: and a production value, commercial in nature, which concerns the external effects generated by cultural heritage management to qualify the products and the images themselves of the businesses in order to make them stand out from the competition. The aim of this article is to inquire into whether, in what way and to what extent the communication of the Paper and Watermark Museum in Fabriano and the Ascoli Piceno Papal Paper Mill Museum in Ascoli Piceno creates presentation value and therefore leads the public to understand how far paper production has influenced the economic and socio-cultural history of the area in which they are located.
Słowa kluczowe:
Museum, Cultural Heritage, Accessibility, Education
The value of museum communication: the cases of the Paper and Watermark Museum in Fabriano and the Ascoli Piceno Papal Paper Mill Museum in Ascoli Piceno
Abstract:
Guaranteeing the survival of cultural heritage, increasing its accessibility, both physical and intellectual, and the creation of countless benefits for different categories of stakeholders depends both on a perfect comprehension of the interests and abilities of users to take advantage of what is offered and, above all, on identifying and analysing the various types of value that can be attributed to it. According to Montella, there are three types of value that may be analysed for this purpose: a presentation value, informative in nature and inherent in the historical, cultural and possibly artistic value implicit in the heritage; a landscape value, extended to the context, inherent in the factual information services aimed at supporting policies of preventive and programmed conservation: and a production value, commercial in nature, which concerns the external effects generated by cultural heritage management to qualify the products and the images themselves of the businesses in order to make them stand out from the competition. The aim of this article is to inquire into whether, in what way and to what extent the communication of the Paper and Watermark Museum in Fabriano and the Ascoli Piceno Papal Paper Mill Museum in Ascoli Piceno creates presentation value and therefore leads the public to understand how far paper production has influenced the economic and socio-cultural history of the area in which they are located.
Keywords:
Museum, Cultural Heritage, Accessibility, Education
Literatura / References:
1. Bitgood S., The ABCs of Label Design. Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice, 8 (1991) 115-129.
2. Bitgood S., Practical Guidelines for Developing Interpretive Labels. Visitor Behaviour, Fall, 4-15, (1996). Ferguson L., MacLulich C., Ravelli L. Meanings and messages: language guidelines for museum exhibitions. Sydney: Australian Museum, (1995); Hein G. Learning in the Museum. London: Routledge, (1998).
3. Bollo A. (ed. by), I pubblici dei musei, Milano: Franco Angeli, 2008.
4. Bourdieu P., Darbel A., L’amour de l’art, Paris 1966.
5. Bradburne J.M., Interaction in the museum – Observing Supporting Learning, Libri Books on Demand, March 2000.
6. Cerquetti M., Capriotti G., La valorizzazione del patrimonio culturale nei territori periferici. Un possibile approccio interdisciplinare applicato al caso di Mevale di Visso (MC), Il Capitale Culturale XIII (2016) 421-465.
7. Council of Europe 2005, Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, Faro, 27the October 2005,
http://www.ecco-eu.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CETS_199.docxFARO_CONVENTION.pdf
8. Fortis D., Il plain language. Quando le istituzioni si fanno capire, in Quadreni del MdS, 2003.
9. Dragoni P., Processo al museo. Sessant’anni di dibattito sulla valorizzazione museale in Italia, Firenze: Edifir, 2010.
10. Dragoni P., Accessible à tous. La rivista «Mouseion» per la promozione del ruolo sociale del museo, Il Capitale Culturale XI (2014) 149-221.
11. Dragoni P., La concezione moderna del museo (1930). All’origine di un sistema di regole comuni per i musei, Il Capitale Culturale XIV (2016) 25-51.
12. Goode G.B., A memorial of George Brown Goode, Annual report of the U.S. National Museum, Washington: Smithsonian Institution 1986.
13. Hood M., Audience Research Tell Us Why Visitors Come to Museums – and why they don’t. in Scott C. (ed.) Evaluation and Visitor Research in Museums: Towards 2000. Sydney, Powerhouse Publishing, 3-10, (1995).
14. Hooper-Greenhill E. (ed.), The educational Role of the Museum, Londra: Routledge 1994.
15. Kelly L., Jumping in Head First! – Implementing a New Approach to Public Program Evaluation. in Scott C. (ed.), Evaluation and Visitor Research in Museums: Towards 2000. Sydney Powerhouse Publishing, 161-168, (1996).
16. Kelly L., Developing access to collections: assessing user needs. museums Australia Conference, Albury, 1999a. Available online at
http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc.
17. Kelly L., Finding Evidence of Visitor Learning. Musing on Learning seminar, Australian Museum, April, (1999b). Available online at http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc.
18. La guida dei musei della cartiera papale 2017.
19. Léveillé A., La croisade des musées, Museum 1949 II(4), Les Museés au service de tous II, 197-198.
20. Litwak J.M., Using Questions as Titles on Museum Exhibit Labels to Direct Visitor Attention and Increase Learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, (1996).
21. Longhenry S., Labels for Contemporary Art. Museum Practice, 18-21 (1998).
22. MacLulich C., Off the wall: new perspectives on the language of exhibition texts. in Scott C. (ed.) Evaluation and Visitor Research in Museums: Towards 2000. Sydney, Powerhouse Publishing 105-115, (1995).
23. McLean K., Planning For People in Exhibitions. Washington, Association of Science Centres-Technology Centres, 1993.
24. McManus P., Oh, Yes, They Do: How Museum Visitors Read Labels and Interact with Exhibit Texts. Curator 32(3) (1989) 174-189; Samson D., Reading Strategies Used by Exhibition Visitors. in Blais A. (ed.), Text in the Exhibition Medium. Quebec City: Musee de la civilisation, (1995).
25. Montella M., Valore e valorizzazione del patrimonio culturale storico, Milano: Electa, 2009.
26. Regione Toscana, La parola scritta nel museo. Lingua, accesso, democrazia, Atti del convegno (Arezzo 17 ottobre 2008) 2008.
27. Rivière G.H., The organisation and functions of the Museums, Museum 1949 II(4), Les Museés au service de tous II, 206-214.
28. Serrell B., Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 1996.
29. Serrell B., Paying Attention: The Duration and Allocation of Visitors’ Time in Museum Exhibitions. Curator 40(2) (1997) 108-125, Weil S., Creampuffs and Hardball: Are You Really Worth What You Cost? Museum News 73(5) (1994) 42-44, 62.
30. The role of museums in today’s Latin America, Museum XXV(3) (1973).