Diary of an NUS Museum Intern: Rachel Koh

Note: Diary of an NUS Museum Intern is a series of blog posts written by our interns about their experiences during the course of their internships. Working alongside their mentors, our interns have waded through tons of historical research, assisted in curatorial work, pitched in during exhibition installations and organised outreach events! If you would like to become our next intern, visit our internship page for more information! 

-

Rachel Koh is a second-year Sociology student at the NUS Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. As our Resource Libary Intern, Rachel has assisted with the cataloging of the NUS Museum's Resource Libary.

I think, perhaps, one of the most earth-shattering revelations to have early into your internship is to discover an impending paradigm shift in what you’ve always taken for granted.

Michelle, my supervisor, introduces the issue at hand like this, that ICOM is proposing a new museum definition, a move that has been so utterly controversial and agonised upon that representatives have voted to postpone the crucial vote to the next AGM.

The definitions are as below:

Current Definition: 
A Museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.

Proposed Definition: 
Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.
Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.


The current definition is what we are most used to. It is straightforward and traditional; the museum experience is visualised as a one-way street, providing a “service” from museum to visitor. Strikingly, his one-directional movement is no longer echoed in the proposed definition. The terms “democratising” (being made accessible to everyone) and “polyphonic” (producing or involving many sounds and voices) goes one step further than being simply “open to public”, there has to be an exchange of ideas present in order for this idealised polyphony to even be produced in the first place. Simultaneously, how can any institution say for sure that they are all inclusive? Who will be responsible for the checks and balances to enforce this?

There are also elements that have clearly been dropped from the current definition. For starters, the any sort of word implying “permanence” is nowhere to be found in the proposed definition. On one hand, we can chalk this up to the effect of globalisation, how enhanced international networks have normalised and encouraged collaborations across borders. A good example of this can be seen in our very own ArtScience Museum, Future World: Where Art Meets Science, a permanent interactive exhibition put together by teamLab, hailing from Japan, subtly addressing some very Singaporean issues such as land use and the integration of technology.

On the other hand, we can also read this as an effort on ICOM’s part to encourage change and emphasise temporality. This is cool for everyone! Artists can obtain more opportunities to present to greater audiences of different demographics, which contributes to further personal growth and development. Visitors have all the more reason to visit their local museums and discover new information every time. There is an envisioned future where museums are not merely their permanent exhibitions.

Between these two definitions, the purposes of museums also stand to be revamped. We can weakly regroup the purposes of “education” and “study” under the proposed “enhanced understanding”, but enjoyment is no longer implicitly stated. Going back to my previous point, it is no longer sufficient to simply be a passive spectator. Now, visitors are expected to critically engage with the artefacts. With this, also harkens questions of whether play is important. 

On a visit to the Science Centre Singapore, my colleagues and I fumble dumbly through a mirror maze situated in an exhibit about light, while a young boy zooms towards the exit in record time. Was it fun? Yes, regardless of whether I, a twenty-one year old, was constantly being one-upped by children. I stumble through another few mazes and I realise not all sorts of visitors are the same – some are like my younger brother, possessing an insatiable curiosity that drives them to pull the world apart just to figure out how things work, some are like me, I need to be drawn into the moment, gripped by the hand and pulled through the gates of knowledge in order to learn. We need all elements to work together in order to put together an experience for all kinds of visitors, no matter the age or inclination.

Another interesting detail to note is how the word “institution” has been replaced by “spaces”. This move to de-formalise museum spaces is an interesting one. Museums will extend beyond gigantic white marble palaces, or if we’re talking closer to home, off-white colonial buildings. 

Over this winter’s internship programme, the cohort briefly wandered the corridors of Golden Mile Complex, working through the question of whether it could count under the new movement of museums. As far as the building itself is concerned, it’s almost a complete anti-thesis of our current galleries: built by Singaporean architects, intended for a postmodern Singapore. And it’s just an exciting thought to hold onto, even if the technicalities don’t appear to work out.

Of course, certain components have been retained, the most evident one being museums’ non-profit status. The definition of “non-profit” is quite straightforward: not making or conducted primarily to make a profit, but as much as this has not changed, I have my qualms. Museums drive tourism, drive revenue, regardless of whether we intend for it or not. In a country as practical as this one, it is simply unrealistic for us to think of museums as separate from any capitalistic agendas.

Another constant is how both definitions come to a consensus that museums should research and exhibit the tangible and intangible. This is a comforting anchor in the entirety of the new proposed definition, and one of the few elements we can definitely say for sure we can concretely visualise. Critically, this is what museums mean to the layman, a means of learning about a time and space that is not in the now through physical and non-physical means.

The new definition introduces the concept of transparency. In the context of a museum, transparency seems like a random idea. Let’s break it down a bit: the idea of transparency differs from context to context. What is ICOM referring to exactly when they say that they would like to see transparency in our museums? Museums can be transparent and not-transparent in many ways. Would releasing the nitty gritty of their finances be it? Or perhaps coming clean about the origins of certain artefacts? There is a lot to unpack in this post-colonial era. Perhaps this is why some big museums out there are worried.

The proposed definition also brings forth additional dimensions: future projection, and activism. This perhaps is symbolic of ICOM’s belief in the importance of having room for discussion with the present so that there is a future to look forward to, and enact change. This is an exciting thing to think about in terms of Singapore. Singapore is a relatively young nation, and compared to our European counterparts, we do not possess long histories. Ultimately, the work of museums does not seem significant as of now but it stands to hold more meaning in the long run.

My job scope requires me to pore over titles and titles and through it, I uncover a little bit more of a past. These books are different, rare, even; some come from the Nanyang Library, some are donated by curators, some are sent our way by other galleries. As long as the library remains a work in progress, I won’t be able to tell for sure what story this room will be telling. But I know, somehow, there is a multiplicity of voices within these four walls: old museology guides that Michelle suspects might’ve been used in the setting up of the museum, books from Overseas-Chinese artists specialising in traditional ink, exhibition brochures of contemporary Singaporean artists trying to negotiate their place in a post-modern world – 

During our discussion, another colleague points out that the current definition has been in place since 2007. As we usher in a new decade, the proposed definition is a heads up to the future. The ideals envisioned can push the idea of museums being accessible for everyone, rather than its image of being stuffy, stagnant and exclusive to the rich or extensively educated. 

The vote to keep the current definition wins in our discussion. In my opinion, this is the problem: the proposed definition is twice as long as the old one, but to be honest, it’s also twice as confusing. The current definition is concrete and practical, and the proposed definition exudes an idealism that is nothing like that. 

Ultimately, my vote sways more conservative than expected. I perceive a missing link in between the two definitions, and it is unfair to simply expect our museums to adapt and make the leap. Furthermore, it is simply too much to assign this many responsibilities to a particular space. How can we expect our museums to encompass all these qualities at once, when an role model doesn’t exist in the first place? I have my reservations about the proposal becoming a be-all, end-all definition, but it champions pioneering qualities that all museums can attempt to emulate. 

Now that’s a future we could work towards.