|
|
|
| Practical Relationships and Theoretical Categories of Innovation in Chinese Local Museums |
| Sun Weilun |
| School of Heritage and Culture, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K. |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In recent years, the number of local museums in China has grown rapidly, but they often suffer from quality issues due to insufficient innovation. Despite investing in grand new buildings and digital technologies, many local museums exhibit similar content and fall into homogenization, epitomized by the saying “first-rate collections, third-rate exhibitions” and the “hundred museums, one face” phenomenon. Overcoming these shortcomings and achieving true innovation has become a pressing challenge for local museum development. Although some aspects of these issues have been discussed in previous studies, a comprehensive root-level analysis has been lacking.In order to address this gap, the present study adopts an interdisciplinary museum studies approach combined with field research methods. In line with this approach, perspectives from history, architecture, anthropology, cultural studies and related disciplines are integrated to comprehensively examine the factors influencing museum innovation. The author conducted in-depth fieldwork at Suzhou Museum during 2019-2020 and found that Suzhou’s successful practices align closely with four key issues in local museum innovation. Accordingly, the study distills these issues into four pairs of core theoretical categories: “local historical materials and spiritual traits”, “government intentions and professionalism”, “local individuality and global commonality”, and “exhibition quality and cultural empathy”.The four category pairs epresent a fundamental tension in local museum innovation and suggest corresponding solutions. Firstly, curators should extensively mine local historical sources and distill the region’s unique spiritual traits, thereby highlighting the museum’s distinctive character and avoiding homogenization of exhibits. Secondly, a professionalism-oriented mechanism needs to be established to balance governmental intentions with scholarly autonomy, ensuring scientific and independent decision-making in museum planning. Thirdly, exhibition content and design should integrate distinctive local cultural identity with universal values, embodying the concept of “glocalization” to give local museums a globally resonant presence. Fourthly, enhancing exhibition quality through strategies that foster cultural empathy in audiences should be a primary goal, so that museum exhibits provide a deeper educational impact and emotional resonance.The case of Suzhou Museum illustrates the practical value of this theoretical framework. For instance, during the planning and design of Suzhou Museum, renowned architect I.?M. Pei deeply researched Suzhou’s cultural heritage—especially its classical gardens—and extracted the essence of the “Suzhou style” as the spiritual core, seamlessly integrating these elements into the museum’s modern architecture and exhibits. This culturally rooted yet innovative approach enabled Suzhou Museum’s exhibitions to embody a unique local spirit while attaining broad international appeal, thus avoiding the homogenization seen in other regional museums. Suzhou’s success not only exemplifies an effective fusion of local identity with global vision, but also benefitted from strong governmental support for professional expertise and a commitment to enhancing visitors’ emotional engagement.In conclusion, this study constructs a systematic framework of four fundamental theoretical categories to analyze and resolve the innovation challenges facing local museums. This work is among the first to systematically conceptualize the core relationships that underpin local museum innovation in China, thereby enriching the field of museum studies and providing a foundation for further research and practical improvement. In particular, the four category pairs proposed here serve both as critical levers to drive local museums’ de-homogenization and creative development, and as basic criteria to evaluate the success of museum practices.
|
|
Received: 23 February 2025
|
|
|
|
1 陆建松：《博物馆展览策划：理念与实务》，上海：复旦大学出版社，2016年。
2 郑奕：《博物馆提升城市软实力研究》，《东南文化》2019年第4期，第121-126页。
3 von Boehm G.， Conversations with I.M. Pei： Light Is the Key， München： Prestel Publishing， 2000.
4 英］戈登·法伊夫、［英］马克斯·罗斯：《破译观众的凝视：博物馆参观的再思考》，见［英］莎伦·麦克唐纳、戈登·法伊夫编著：《理论博物馆：变化世界中的一致性与多样性》，陆芳芳译，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2020年，第110-130页。
5 美］菲利普·朱迪狄欧、［美］珍妮特·亚当斯·斯特朗：《贝聿铭全集》，黄萌译，北京：北京联合出版公司，2021年。
6 德］马丁·普洛斯勒：《博物馆与全球化》，见［英］莎伦·麦克唐纳、戈登·法伊夫编著：《理论博物馆：变化世界中的一致性与多样性》，陆芳芳译，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2020年，第19-40页。
7 罗志田：《清季科举制改革的社会影响》，《中国社会科学》1998年第4期，第185-196页。
8 于杰、王凤奇：《编钟的社会认知与文化传承——以汶上县博物馆为例》，《文物鉴定与鉴赏》2024年第10期，第150-153页。
9 何柏生：《数学对法律文化的影响》，《法律科学（西北政法学院学报）》2000年第6期，第3-17页。
10 Gray C.， The Politics of Museums， Hampshire and New York： Palgrave Macmillan， 2015.
11 德］马克斯·韦伯：《经济与社会》（上卷），林荣远译，北京：商务印书馆，1997年。
12 法］米歇尔·福柯：《规训与惩罚》，刘北成、杨远婴译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1999年。
13 Habermas J.， Between Facts and Norms： Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy， Cambridge： The MIT Press， 1998.
14 美］克利福德·吉尔兹：《地方性知识——阐释人类学论文集》，王海龙、张家瑄译，北京：中央编译出版社，2000年。
15 美］段义孚：《恋地情结》（珍藏本），志丞、刘苏译，北京：商务印书馆，2018年。
16 英］约翰·厄里：《社会如何记忆过去》，见［英］莎伦·麦克唐纳、戈登·法伊夫编著：《理论博物馆：变化世界中的一致性与多样性》，陆芳芳译，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2020年，第41-58页。
17 美］薇拉·佑尔伯格：《博物馆——争议性的记忆之地：“埃诺拉·盖伊”事件》，见［英］莎伦·麦克唐纳、戈登·法伊夫编著：《理论博物馆：变化世界中的一致性与多样性》，陆芳芳译，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2020年，第61-72页。
18 王明珂：《历史事实、历史记忆与历史心性》，《历史研究》2001年第5期，第136-147，191页。
19 曾斌：《地方性知识：少数民族文学的认知与传播功能》，《民族文学研究》2020年第5期，第33-38页。
20 英］约翰·斯图尔特：《精神科学的逻辑》，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2009年。
21 Hale J.， “Narrative environments and the paradigm of embodiment，” in MacLeod S.， Hanks L. H. & Hale J. （eds.）， Museum Making： Narratives， Architectures， Exhibitions， London： Routledge， 2012， pp. 192-200.
22 Dudley S. H. （ed.）， Museum Materialities： Objects， Engagements， Interpretations， London： Routledge， 2009.
23 赵凌：《符号叙事学视域下的博物馆展示设计教学研究》，《美术教育研究》2024年第9期，第123-125页。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
