For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Doc. 9503

15 July 2002

The spirit of Europe in museums

Report

Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Rapporteur Mr Gerrit Valk, Netherlands, Socialist Group

Summary

The Assembly marks the 25 years of the European museum award scheme by underlining what it has achieved in developing the spirit of Europe in museums. The dynamic approach of the European Museum Forum to the role of the museum in society merits more active support from the Committee of Ministers. A feasibility study is requested on the concept of a Museum of Europe.

I.       Draft recommendation

1.       The European museum award scheme has now been run for some 25 years under the auspices of the Council of Europe by the independent European Museum Forum.

2.       Each year the Parliamentary Assembly has awarded the Council of Europe Museum Prize as its contribution to the scheme. This award is made to a museum judged to have made a notable contribution to the understanding of the European heritage.

3.       The European Museum Forum also organises a series of other activities, including annual lectures, workshops and seminars. These have been largely based on the expanding network of new museums involved in the award scheme and have become an increasingly important part of the contribution it is making to the development of museum thinking in Europe. This is particularly focused on the relations between museums and their public.

4.       The workshops held in Bertinoro and Monsummano in 2000 and 2001 have been devoted to the theme of “the spirit of Europe” in museums.

5.       The Assembly:

i.       welcomes its continuing cooperation with the European Museum Forum in the organisation of the European museum awards and related activities,

ii.       invites the Committee of Ministers to play a more active role in the development of museum cooperation in Europe, for example by initiating a feasibility study on the concept of a Museum of Europe.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Mr Valk

Introduction

The European Museum Forum has been operating since 1977 under the auspices of the Council of Europe. The geographical area covered has been that of the European Cultural Convention and for some time countries of central and eastern Europe have been actively involved. The result is an extensive network of museums concentrating on the interface with public, on their social and creative role, on the interpretation rather than quality of their collections. The Council of Europe has had from the outset its own museum prize as a contribution to the scheme. Questions are now being asked about what is the criterion for the Council of Europe prize? what is the spirit of Europe in museums?

These questions are fairly central to current thinking about Europe in general. They also have a practical relevance to where thoughtful museums can lead us.

The debate about European cultural identity

Since the creation of the Council of Europe there has been debate over the notion of a common cultural identity as a unifying factor. It has not been convincing. The very first discussions in the Parliamentary Assembly in 1949 failed to identify sufficient common ground and concluded that the notion was rather political than cultural. Subsequent attempts have yielded either the paradoxical assertion that the cultural identity of Europe lies in its diversity or appeals for an assemblage of core cultural characters (from Epicurus to Tolstoy and Freud - French Senate Dec 2001). The Committee of Ministers has itself produced declarations on cultural identity (1985 essentially opening cooperation with central and eastern Europe) and on cultural diversity (2000 as a positive reaction to globalisation).

This is the subject of the current series of colloquies organised by the SG of the Council of Europe. The European Union Convention is likely to consider the question in its own context.

There are two issues in these discussions. Is there a cultural identity to Europe? Can culture reinforce the notion of European identity? Clearly both cases are political, both in the definition of Europe and in the aim of the exercise.

Quite apart from being cohesive, or rather because of that, insistence on cultural identity can be divisive. It is evident in religious contexts, in professional artistic circles and in-groups. But it is also a incipient danger in protective approaches to minority cultures.

However the distinction is made, and despite attempts to blur the result, there is clearly a negative factor in the division of Europe by the European Union. For this reason it has been urged that the European Union keep clear of culture. But the economic and political interests have tended to prevail.

Outside this political debate however most would accept the notion of multiple (concentric) identities and be hard pressed to give a meaningful “European” label to matters cultural.

Towards a more dynamic notion of European

There are however certain notions, approaches and attitudes that can be characterised as European, even if they are not exclusively European. They are based on such values as civil ethics, rule of law, respect for the individual, freedom of expression and other human rights. To this can be added the development of tradition and recognition of excellence inside set disciplines. But there is also appreciation of creativity. Tolerance comes into this same field. European culture has in effect avidly absorbed outside cultural influences.

We must also admit certain less endearing, materialistic characteristics. These might include competitiveness, commercialisation and interpretation (spin and misrepresentation).

We can argue over the details, but it would appear that this is a more promising approach to a definition of what characterises European culture than the political.

The museum context

Several museum projects have had a political objective. Ms Antoinette Spaak supported a project for a Museum of Europe in Brussels under the scientific direction of Israeli historian Elie Barnavi. The aim was to focus on the “European spirit in the making - a museum devoted to the common culture of Europe, to give the European Union currently under construction a cultural instrument” and to counteract the US dominated entertainment industry (1999). Similar projects have been launched in Paris and Berlin. An earlier proposal, made by the Venice Commission (1996), was for a District in Luxembourg including a Museum of the Union, its archives, academy and library as a “symbol of the common cultural heritage of the peoples and member states of Europe”.

Such proposals have naturally generated some controversy in the European Union Commission, the major potential source of funding, as to where the museums might be located. One solution has been the idea for a series of museums concentrating on regional aspects of Europe. Thus Marseille is preparing a museum on the Mediterranean region (again blurring the definition of what is European). Another approach could be in illustrating certain trends, patterns or aspects of European civilisation.

An alternative, and more unpretentious idea was launched some time ago, also by the European Union Commission which set up a project to fund “European rooms” in museums. The first project was in Norwich Castle Museum in 1980 and Mr Hudson, former Director of the European Museum Forum, acted as consultant. The idea has since been revived in the seminar organised by the European Museum Forum in Bertinoro in October 2000 in the form of “European corners” in museums. Such areas could enable bridges to be established with other countries or broader regions.

But the direction of thinking in that seminar and in the seminar that followed in 2001in Monsummano is perhaps more interesting. In these seminars attention has been increasingly focused not so much on the content of the collections as the manner in which the museum is used. This is most clearly seen with the emergence of the idea of an “empty box” in the later stages of this discussion.

In his article “Is Europe ready for the museum?” (1998) Hermann Schäffer, Director of the Haus der Geschichte in Bonn, asked a pertinent question which is very much in debate in the European museum field. In Udo Gösswald’s current Neukölln project “Born in Europe”, these questions are still being asked.

Another interesting idea has been to develop a virtual museum of Europe, or in Europe, through the Internet.

Discussion on the Council of europe’s own Museum Prize has followed a similar path. Far from promoting the “European Idea” or European cultural unity, the prize is awarded “for a notable contribution to undertsanding of the European heritage”. In this way the prize is essentially linked to creativity or relevance.

Conclusion

The role that museums can play in the European context is to develop thinking about Europe (in its most undefined sense). The spirit of Europe in museums is a dynamic concept of the museum in society rather than for static objects on display.

The Council of Europe should continue to support museum activity along these forward-looking lines in conjunction with its other work for the promotion of appreciation of the past heritage. It should insist that European initiatives in museums are, where applicable, open to the greater European context.

A practical way forward would be for the Council of Europe to initiate a feasibility study on the concept of a Museum of Europe.

*

* *

See further the rapporteur’s intervention at the Monsumano Seminar on the website

http://assembly.coe.int/museum/e_index.htm

Reporting committee: Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Reference to committee: Doc. 8960 and Reference No. 2576 of 14.3.2001

Draft recommendation adopted unanimously by the committee on 27 June 2002

Members of the committee: MM. de Puig (Chairman), Saglam, Baronne Hooper (alternate: Walter), MM. Prisacaru (Vice-Chair), Akhvlediani, Asciak, Bajrami, Banks, Barbieri, Berceanu, Berzinš, Billing, Birraux, Braga, Mrs Castro (alternate: Varela I Serra), MM. Chaklein, Cherribi, Mrs Cryer, MM. Cubreacov, Dalgaard, Mrs Damanaki (alternate: Kontogiannopoulos); Mrs Delvaux-Stehres, Mrs Domingues, MM. Duka Zólyomi, Felici, Mrs Fernández-Capel (alternate: Mrs Agudo), MM. Gadznowski, Galoyan, Gentil, Gierek (alternate: Podgorski), Goris, Haraldsson, Hegyi, Higgins, Ianuzzi, Irmer (alternate: Haack), Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa, MM. Jakic, Kalkan, Mrs Katseli, Mrs Klaar, Mrs Kutraité Giedraitiené, MM. Lachat, Legendre, Lekberg, Lemoine, Lengagne, Libicki, Liiv, Mrs Lucyga, MM. Maass, Malgieri, Marxer, Mateju, Mrs Melandri, MM. Melnikov, Mestan, Mrs Milotinova, Mrs Nemcova (alternate: Jarab), MM. Nigmatulin, O’Hara, Mrs Pintat Rossell, MM. Rakhansky, Rockenbauer, Rybak, Schellens, Mrs Schicker, MM. Schweitzer, Seyidov, Shybko, Mrs Skarbøvik, MM. Sudarenkov, Theodorou (alternate: Christodoulides), Torbar, Tudor, Vakilov, Valk, Wodarg, Yürür, Mrs Zaćiragić, N.

N.B. The names of those present at the meeting are printed in italics

Head of Secretariat: Mr Grayson

Secretaries to the committee: Mr Ary, Mme Theophilova, Mr Torcatoriu