No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Science-Honour-Metaphor: Italian Cabinets of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries
... Natural collections were also organised at universities, academies and scientific societies. Eventually the number of collections in Italy grew rapidly up to 250 (Olmi, 2019). ...
... One of the earliest and most notable "museolo naturale" were the collections of Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1602) (Fig. 1,2), the first professor of natural philosophy and founder of the first botanical garden of the University of Bologna, Michele Mercati (1541-1593), papal physician and curator of the botanical garden, and Francesco Calzolari (1521-1600), apothecary of Verona, as well as the botanical collection of the physician Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603). The cabinet of Ferrante Imperato, the apothecary of Naples, which was created in 1580, had its own catalogue "Ritratto del museo de Ferrante Imperato" and was considered as predecessor of a specialised natural history museum (Olmi, 2019). Collections of naturalia were called "museum" only later. ...
... Therefore, the word "museum" meant the rooms where collections of specimens of natural origin were stored and studied. In 1669, Paolo Boccone first qualified collections of naturalia as "museum" and noted the "great respect natural history museums had earned in Italy" (Olmi, 2019). ...
The article presents a brief historical outline of the formation and development of natural history museology in Europe in the 15th–19th centuries. The development of scientific knowledge at that time affects the idea of the world order and the place of man in it, and the combination of knowledge with practical experience leads to the birth of true science. It is shown that one of the most important components of the development of natural sciences, in particular biological sciences, was the collection of naturalia (i.e. objects of natural origin), the rapid surge of interest in which contributed to the Great Geographical Discoveries. In chronological order, the further historical development of museum work from private collections in Italy to the formation of a prototype of a genuine museum, which performs the main museum functions such as amassment, storage and demonstration of collections, is considered. The role of prominent naturalists and philosophers such as F. Bacon, C. Linnaeus, and J.-W. Goethe in the development of museum work is considered and little known facts about their work in this area are presented. The first works of art that show the interiors of “Kunstkameras”, which became widespread in Europe in the 17th–18th centuries, are briefly considered. According to the authors, it is on the portrait of the Belarusian educator F. Skorina, which was published in Prague in 1517–1519, that the interior of the first Renaissance “kunstkammer” collections is depicted. Separately, the development of museology in Ukraine since the time of Yuriy Kotermak (Drohobych) (1450–1494) is considered and the differentiation of the concept of “museum” in the monuments of Ukrainian literature of the period of the 16th–18th centuries is studied. The authors considered the methodological foundations of natural history museology and analysed the existing classifications of various branches of science. The specificity of natural history museology in the system of museological science is shown, the issue of singling out natural history museology as an independent discipline is discussed. It is proved that the periodization of museology and museum work in certain territories in historical time can be considered correct; the author's development of the periodization of natural history museology in Europe is also given.
... Cabinets of curiosity may be broadly defined as privately-owned collections of 'extraordinary' objects -typically those perceived as rare, beautiful, ingenious, or strange -which flourished in Europe from the late fifteenth to the early eighteenth centuries. Nevertheless, the history and etymology of the term 'cabinet of curiosity' are problematic (Olmi 2004(Olmi [1985: 129). While in use throughout the early modern period (MacGregor 2007: 11), the term may refer to a physical cabinet, to the space in which the collection was housed and displayed, to the collection itself, or to related spaces such as libraries and gardens. ...
... Cabinets of curiosity may be broadly defined as privately-owned collections of 'extraordinary' objects -typically those perceived as rare, beautiful, ingenious, or strange -which flourished in Europe from the late fifteenth to the early eighteenth centuries. Nevertheless, the history and etymology of the term 'cabinet of curiosity' are problematic (Olmi 2004(Olmi [1985: 129). While in use throughout the early modern period (MacGregor 2007: 11), the term may refer to a physical cabinet, to the space in which the collection was housed and displayed, to the collection itself, or to related spaces such as libraries and gardens. ...
This chapter investigates a single object - a miniature version of a curiosity cabinet produced in Augsburg between 1625-1631 and now on display in the Museum Gustavianum, Uppsala, Sweden. Specifically, it explores how the Augsburg Art Cabinet, as it is now known, was deployed as a means of constructing knowledge of the world for its seventeenth-century audience through its visual, spatial and representational practices. In particular, I examine the use of physical framing devices, including architecture, iconography, and miniature objects, and how these were both experienced and understood to relate to concepts of knowledge-building during the
seventeenth century. This chapter offers some reflections upon the
contemporary display methods used for the cabinet and how this early modern object is undergoing a slow metamorphosis which has stimulated the creation of new objects. Here, I argue that the practices this miniature cabinet employed are still relevant today and should give museum professionals cause to reconsider our own position with regard to knowledge production and its interpretation.
... However, the value of objects as exhibits consists of many layers of interpretation (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992;Lord & Lord, 1997;Pearce, 1995), that also includes the cultural dimension of natural sciences (Levy-Leblond, 2004;Meunier & Luckerhoff, 2012). Museums, having evolved into wider cultural institutions, with specialized scientific staff from other disciplines trying to provide a holistic understanding of the natural world (Olmi, 1985), made the scope for interpreting tangible and intangible culture and human remains wider (Desvallées & Mairesse, 2014). Museum pluralism in terms of architecture, administration, and function enhances the symbolic nature and social dimension of the museum's mission, beyond the traditional obligations of preserving, validating and enriching cultural heritage (Ambrose & Paine, 2012;Burton & Scott, 2007;Grenier, 2013;Tobelem, 2010). ...
This article examines the potentiality of the dissemination of natural sciences not in the usual science museum environment, but in the archaeological museum. The aim is to highlight the existing interfaces between the fields of archaeology and the natural sciences in the setting of a Greek archaeological museum so that its exhibition space can serve as a field for non-formal education for dissemination of natural sciences as well. Starting with the investigation of the necessity of such a choice, which follows the international trend of interdisciplinary interpretation of museum collections and dialogues between permanent collections and temporary exhibitions of different disciplines, it identifies the following four interfaces: a) archaeometry, b) conservation, c) ancient Greek science and d) ancient Greek technology and art. Finally, it examines the feasibility of designing a ‘science educational islet’, a museum structure mainly addressed at school groups that embodies the relationship between natural sciences and archaeology as a result of both didactic and museographic transposition simultaneously.
... Aldrovandi played the role of theorist and leader of this group, and was the most respected among the founders of the first naturalistic museums (BUB, FA, ms. 38 2 ; Mattirolo, 1897, p. 68; De Toni, 1907;Olmi, 1985Olmi, , 2001Find- len, 1989Find- len, , 1994De Bellis, 1998;Vai, 2003a). ...
The Italian naturalist Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1605) - often reductively considered as a mere encyclopedist and avid collector of natural history curiosities - lived an adventurous youth and a long maturity rich of manuscripts, books, and outstanding achievements. He assembled the largest collections of animals, plants, minerals, and fossil remains of his time, which in 1547 became the basis of the first natural history museum open to the public. Shortly after that, he established the first public scientific library. He also proposed a complete single classification scheme for minerals and for living and fossil organisms, and he defined the modern meaning of the word "geology" in 1603. Aldrovandi tried to bridge the gap between simple collection and modern scientific taxonomy by theorizing a "new science" based on observation, collection, description, careful reproduction, and ordered classification of all natural objects. In an effort to gain an integrated knowledge of all processes occurring on Earth and to derive tangible benefits for humankind, he was a strenuous supporter of team effort, collaboration, and international networking. He anticipated and influenced Galileo Galilei's experimental method and Francis Bacon's utilitarianism, providing also the first attempt to establish the binomial nomenclature for both living and fossil species and introducing the concept of a standard reference or type for each species. His books and manuscripts are outstanding contributions to the classification of geological objects, and to the understanding of natural processes such as lithification and fossilization, thereby also influencing Steno's stratigraphic principles. The importance given to careful observation induced Aldrovandi to implement a unifor-mitarian approach in geology for both the classification of objects and the interpretation of processes. Aldrovandi influenced a school in natural history that reached its climax with the Istituto delle Scienze of Bologna in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with scientists such as Cospi, Marsili, Scheuchzer, Vallisneri, Beccari, and Monti in geology, and Malpighi, Cassini, Guglielmini, Montanari, Algarotti in other fields.
The Oxford Handbook of the History of Archaeology explores a wide range of topics in an original manner. The volume is divided into seven parts, each covering a broad theme. Part I encompasses chapters on methodology and theory: who has written about the history of archaeology; how to work with archives and oral history, photo archives, and biographies; and a critical view about “genius,” “precursors,” and “great (white) men.” Part II deals with the practices of archaeology throughout the centuries: excavation methods, the use of stratigraphy, human remains, and the interaction between archaeology and other sciences. Objects, artifact distribution, and museums are the focus of the following set of chapters in Part III. Part IV overviews a selection of fields of archaeological research and types of archaeology, including gender, historical, conflict, public, and commercial archaeologies. Institutions and legislation are the focus of Part V: selected topics encompass the history of foreign schools in the Mediterranean, of the international congresses of archaeology, the relationship between archaeology and education, legislation, and the illicit trade in antiquities. Part VI deals with ideologies and the political context of archaeology: the religious context of particular archaeological projects in the history of the discipline; nationalism, colonialism, imperialism, and the postcolonial turn; orientalism; race and racism; and the impact of communism on archaeological theory, methodology, and practice in countries with communist governments in the twentieth century. Part VII explores the social history of archaeology, with a focus on women, amateurs, the army, tourism, economics, and communities.
Tässä tutkielmassa tarkastellaan museokokoelmien muotoutumista ja sitä, minkälaisia eettisiä kysymyksiä siihen liittyy. Museokokoelmia on kerätty useiden vuosisatojen aikana, jonka vuoksi kokoelmaesineet ja löydöt on kerätty jopa hyvin erilaisin eettisin perustein. Eettiseltä kannalta tämä on ongelmallista, sillä museoiden kokoelmatyössä on osattava huomioida sekä mennyt, nykyisyys että tuleva. Tutkielmassani väitän, että ei ole olemassa yhtäkään täysin eettisesti ongelmatonta museokokoelmaa johtuen siitä, että ne ovat muodostuneet pitkällä aikavälillä ja eri eettisten uskomusten, lakien ja käytänteiden varassa. Eettisiä kysymyksiä on tästä johtuen museoiden kokoelmatyön kannalta olennaista jatkuvasti kehittää eteenpäin.
Olen jakanut tarkastelemani eettiset kysymykset kolmeen eri osa-alueeseen: 1) ihmisjäänteiden eettiseen käsittelyyn 2), autenttisuuden ongelmiin ja 3) historialliseen reiluuteen. Eettiset kysymykset toimivat tutkimuksessa aiemman tutkimuksen perusteella määriteltyinä teoreettisina malleina, joiden kautta tarkastelen aineistoesimerkkejäni, niiden päätymistä kokoelmiin, sekä niihin liittyviä eettisiä kysymyksiä. Aineistoesimerkkeinä on 1600-luvulle ajoitettuja kohteita Turun museokeskuksen kulttuurihistoriallisista kokoelmista, sekä Satakunnan Museolle deponoituja arkeologisia aineistoja. Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena ei ole tuottaa niinkään uutta tietoa tarkasteltavana olevista aineistoista itsessään, vaan ne toimivat välineinä tuotettaessa museokokoelmien muotoutumiseen ja museoiden kokoelmatyöhön liittyvää teoriaa.
Olennaisia teoksia teoreettisia malleja määriteltäessä on ollut ihmisjäänteiden osalta muun muassa E. Hallamin ja J. Hockeyn Death, Memory & Material Culture sekä UNESCOn Human Remains and Museum Practice. Autenttisuuden teoriaa olen määrittänyt L. Viinikkalan väitöskirjan Digitaalisia valheita vai historiallista tietoa? Aineellisen todellisuuden, kerronnan ja historiallisen tiedon suhde yhdistetyn todellisuuden teknologiaa hyödyntävissä menneisyyden esityksissä avulla. Historiallisen reiluuden teoria taas perustuu J. Kalelan tutkimuksiin Historiantutkimus ja historia sekä Making History: The Historian and the Uses of the Past.
Tutkimuksen keskeinen tulos on, että jotta museokokoelmien eteen tehty työ olisi eettistä, olisi kokoelmatyön oltava kahdensuuntaisesti eettisesti rakentunutta. Jotta kokoelmatyö siis olisi eettistä, tulisi tutkijan huomioida sekä oma että tutkimuskohteensa kulttuuri. Lisäksi tulisi tiedostaa ne tutkimuskohteen elinkaaren aikana tapahtuneet ja sen sisältämiin merkityksiin vaikuttaneet asiat.
V poznem 18. in zgodnjem 19. stoletju je zbiranje tujih rastlin postalo moda, ki je zajela evropske dvore ter posledično številne plemiče, intelektualce, vrtnarje in druge. Nove rastline so tako gojili v oblikovanih vrtovih, zbirali v herbarijih in navajali v katalogih ali jih dajali upodabljati. V tem času ni bilo pomembno le samo zbiranje rastlin, ampak tudi to, da so lastniki oz. zbiratelji pridobili botanično znanje, ki jim je omogočalo, da so te rastline pravilno uporabljali in predstavljali. Na Kranjskem bi tovrstno botanično zanimanje prepoznali pri baronu Jožefu Erbergu, baronih Zois, jezuitu Gabrielu Gruberju in mnogih drugih. Aktivnosti barona Erberga, kot jih lahko razberemo iz arhivskih virov (predvsem njegove ohranjene korespondence), so tako vključevale zbiranje rastlin, njihovo izmenjavo in nakup ter zanimanje za druge botanične novosti. Med kranjskimi ljubitelji rastlin so bile posebno priljubljene pelargonije, hortenzije in agave, ki so imele pomembno mesto v oblikovanih vrtovih, pogosto znotraj predela vrta, ki je bil namenjen neavtohtonim rastlinam. Zbiranje tujih rastlin pa seveda ni le domena obravnavanega časa in prostora, saj so ga poznali že v času starih civilizacij, kot sta bili npr. asirska in kitajska, ter v 16. in 17. stoletju, in sicer v okviru priljubljenih kabinetov kuriozitet. Ob primerjanju slednjih in botaničnih zbirk zgodnjega 19. stoletja lahko prepoznamo nekatere podobnosti (zbiranje redkih, predvsem eksotičnih rastlin ter zbiranje rastlin z namenom prikazati imperialno moč), vendar so družbene spremembe 18. in 19. stoletja vplivale na botanično zbiranje ter prinesle novosti in razlike. Razvoj botanike kot znanosti, uveljavljanje botaničnega ljubiteljstva, modne rastline, zanimanje za gospodarsko donosnost posesti, spremenjeno dojemanje narave in okolja ter drugih družbenih vrednot, kot sta bili družina in država – vse to je torej okoli leta 1800 vplivalo na priljubljenost zbiranja rastlin v evropskem prostoru oz. na Kranjskem. Tako lahko zbiranje rastlin v tem času posledično vidimo tudi kot zaton in preobrazbo nekdanjih naravoslovnih kabinetov kuriozitet.
Улісссе Альдрованді – видатний італійський дослідник природи, перший в історії повний професор природничих наук, який зробив суттєвий внесок в становлення музеїв і наукового природознавства та набув слави називатися “батьком природознавства”(за Карлом Ліннеєм). У статті наводяться розлогі відомості щодо біографії Альдрованді та складний шлях формування його наукових інтересів. Особлива увага у роботі приділяється маловідомій інформації щодо особливостей природничої колекції та унікального музею Альдрованді, які були досліджені автором особисто в університеті м.Болонья (Італія) у 2018 р. Музей, що був задуманий та створений Альдрованді, зберігся до цих пір практично у незмінному стані з невеликими втратами, хоча протягом часу був переміщений у різні установи частково або цілком. Опрацьовані нами каталоги колекцій, складені вченим, відтворюють прагнення вченого обліковувати, каталогізувати та класифікувати доступні йому натуралії, а також предмети іншого походження, які на його думку, відбивали значення природи у житті людини. Надано досить детальний огляд багатотомної (400 томів) ілюстрованої енциклопедії Альдрованді, підґрунтям для якої стала його колекція. Зазначено, що не зважаючи на передові на той час погляди та високу освіченість Альдрованді, в його творах поряд з науковими фактами наводяться наївні інтерпретації з описами фантастичних створінь — русалок, сфінксів, драконів та ін. Разом з цим, вчений бачив та відзначав межу між емпіричним дослідженням природи і його символічною інтерпретацією. Альдрованді був першим з вчених, хто залучив у природничу історію велику кількість власних і безпосередніх досліджень та зібрав наукову колекцію натуралій. Величність задуму, обсяг зібрань та масштабність наукових інтересів вченого вражала його сучасників, які визнавали museo naturale Альдрованді “найкращим кабінетом у Європі та найбільшим мікокосмом природи” того часу. Підкреслено, що колекція натуралій Альдрованді стала складовою частиною соціального та культурного контексту народження природничої історії як дисципліни. Відзначено також надзвичайно велике значення музею Альдрованді як популяризаційної установи, що пропонувала “премудрість” у формі, яка була придатна для сприйняття на той час для поширення наукової інформації.
As a species of hunter and gatherer, we as humans are driven to collect things that we can use to sustain our lives, but once the intrinsic need of this process is met, animals of all sorts will collect objects for other purposes. To the contemporary artist, this innate sense of object envy or the desire to collect has become a driving force behind much contemporary art practice and is firmly posited in art theory. Patterns are emerging within collecting processes that have become templates for unique styles of representation, be they conceptual or practical. This research probes beneath the surface of artistic practice in relation to collected object inclusive artistic practice in the search for a model to explain the phenomena which has become more prevalent over the past century. The historical discourse of object collecting, classification and display from the Medieval Reliquary, cabinets of curiosities, early museums and the modern and contemporary museological frameworks of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries forms the basis of this research. It is hypothesized that this historic continuum of collection processes has generated culturally and socially influenced object interaction behaviours that underpin the manner in which humans collect, classify and display objects. These historically informed behaviours have, over the span of history, resulted in a set of codified practices of collecting, classification and display. These practices, which have been repeated over the course of object collecting history, appear to have been adapted and incorporated into contemporary visual arts practice in those instances where artists engage with collected objects. To investigate the resonances of characteristic practices of historic collection processes that can be observed in contemporary collected object inclusive artistic practice, a series of researcher generated theoretic paradigms titled the Butterfly Pin Constructs, has been developed. The Butterfly Pin Constructs consist of five individual constructs that represent key elements of collecting, classification and display which have persisted and evolved since the Medieval period. These theoretic representations provide a platform upon which to discuss collected object inclusive artistic practice and the impact of the legacy of collection processes upon this contemporary phenomenon. This research utilises interview data from four Australian sample artists and the visual analysis of a number of their works of art to interrogate the framework of the Butterfly Pin Constructs and the role they may fulfil within the creative process. The Butterfly Pin Constructs, as embodiments of key characteristics of historic collection processes, are the central framework upon which an understanding of the phenomena of collected object inclusive practice can be positioned. As such, the interview responses and works of art of the late Tom Risley, Donna Marcus, Patrick Hall and Glen Skien, each of whom engage in collected object inclusive artistic practice, offer a sample set of this artistic phenomenon upon which to assess the validity of this theoretic model as offering an alternate paradigm to examine collected object inclusive artistic practice.
Der Ausdruck »›museal‹ hat im Deutschen [eine] unfreundliche Farbe. Er bezeichnet Gegenstände, […] die mehr aus historischer Rücksicht aufbewahrt werden als aus gegenwärtigem Bedürfnis« (Adorno 1976, S. 215). Wenn man unter Museum etwas versteht, das verstaubte Zeugen einer fernen Vergangenheit enthält, und das entweder aus Pflichtgefühl oder der Nostalgie wegen besucht wird, kann man mit einem Artikel über das Museum kaum etwas zum jetzigen Stand der Populären Kultur beitragen. Wird das Museum vornehmlich oder ausschließlich als Ort der Geschichte begriffen, wird es zum Hort der Hochkultur. Zieht man jedoch neuere, kritische Museumsstudien hinzu, verändert sich diese Einschätzung, da sie das Museum nicht länger als ein totes Monument ansehen; vielmehr wird es zunehmend in seiner entscheidenden Rolle bei der Bestimmung zeitgenössischer Identität, Kultur und einem tragfähigem Konzept des Populären erkannt, erforscht und gefordert.
In the late 18th and early 19th century, the collecting of exotic plants became a fashion that took hold of European courts, and was followed by many noblemen, intellectuals, gardeners and others. It was not only popular to grow new plants in gardens, collecting them in herbaria or illustrating and enumerating them in catalogues, but was also important to develop botanical knowledge to enable the owners of the plants to use and present them. In Carniola we can observe this interest in botany in the cases of Baron Joseph Erberg, Barons Žiga and Karl Zois, Jesuit Gabriel Gruber as well as many others. Baron Erberg's activity is recorded in archives which include lively correspondence concerning plant collecting, the exchange and purchase of plants and other botanical matters. So we can see that among plant lovers in Carniola foreign plants such as pelargonium, agave and hydrangea were popular and that they had a special role in gardens devoted especially to exotic plants. The collecting of exotic plants is not just a phenomenon of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries but can be traced back to early civilisations such the Assyrians and ancient Chinese and was also notable in a the 16th and 17th centuries with their cabinets of curiosities. But studying the botanical collection of exotic and new (or newly defined) plants gardens of the late 18th and early 19th centuries shows us that although we can recognize some of the old “habits” in the process of collecting (collecting of rare, fascinating plants or collecting plants to demonstrate imperial power) the social changes in the 18th century left their trace also in this aspect of human activity. Thus we can understand plant collecting of this time as a decline and metamorphosis of the former natural cabinets of curiosities. In botanical gardens of the late 18th and early 19th century we see the development of science of botany, the rise of the amateur botanist, a different perception of nature and the environment, the development of education and new social values including family and state, which all had an impact on the popularity of the plant collecting around the year 1800 in Europe and in Carniola.
Das Museum ist bis heute, auch wenn man es angesichts von Marketingzwängen, Werbelogos und Umsatz getriebenen Events nicht
mehr so recht glauben will, eine alte Bildungseinrichtung. Ihre Ursprünge reichen zurück bis ins ausgehende Mittelalter. Damals
drang die Bildungsidee in die Sammlungsgeschichte ein, und zwar über zwei unterscheidbare Wege: über die mittelalterliche
Schatzkammer und über die mittelalterliche Gelehrtenstube. Aus beiden ging durch diesen Einfluss jener neue Typ von Privatsammlung
hervor, in dem man den Ausgangspunkt der neuzeitlichen Museumsentwicklung sehen darf. Der Aufsatz zeichnet – nach einer kritischen
Anmerkung zum Stand der Museumshistoriographie – die Hauptlinien dieser Entwicklung in einfachen Strichen nach.
The museum remains, even today, an educational institution – although one might doubt this looking at the current marketing
pressures, promotional events and pursuit for higher financial turnovers. The origins of the museum stretch back into the
late Middle Ages. At that time, the philosophy of education made its way into the history of collecting via inconspicuous
paths: via the medieval treasury and via the medieval scholarly room. From both emerged a new type of private collection,
which can be seen as the starting point of the development of modern museums. This contribution outlines – following a critical
commentary on the current status of museum historiography – the main trajectories of this development.
0039–3681/99 $- see front matter
This paper provides explicit characteristics of those two-part tariffs which maximize profit and consumers' plus producer's surplus. The effect of consumption externalities (as in telecommunications systems) is then explored. The characterizations are in terms of elasticities of demand with respect to price, income, and the number of other customers in the system.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.