{"id":2,"date":"2014-10-02T03:36:39","date_gmt":"2014-10-02T03:36:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wp\/?page_id=2"},"modified":"2016-10-27T10:31:33","modified_gmt":"2016-10-27T14:31:33","slug":"actualites","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/cieco.umontreal.ca\/en\/actualites\/","title":{"rendered":"Reports and Accounts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Research premises<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Over the past two or three decades, the museum has become a focus of university study through the proliferation and diversification of museology, or museum studies, programs. At the same time, it has become increasingly common to see museums organize their programming around considerations that bring certain aspects of their individual histories into view. In other words, the university no longer has a monopoly on self-reflection. In such a context, the two institutions that construct and embody the discipline of art history, these two institutional \u201cheads\u201d whose relationships have often been far from harmonious (Haxthausen: 2002 and Lamoureux: 2007), are now more permeable than they have ever been. Most museums were originally formed around a collection or, more frequently, around a collection of collections (Lacroix: 2008). Exhibitions, being temporary events, were more often held in other venues and, despite their successes, did not significantly impact the day-to-day practices of museums. This situation changed over the course of the 19th century. For the people of that time (as Flaubert remarked in his Dictionary of Received Ideas<\/em>), the exhibition was a \u201csujet de d\u00e9lire<\/em>\u201d\u00a0(Hamon: 1989). One thinks of the period\u2019s fondness for universal expositions (Mainardi: 1987) and of the growing success of the Salons and their decisive role in the creation of a \u201cpublic\u201d (Crow: 1985). The confirmation of this state of affairs over the past four decades, a process given added impetus by the blockbuster formula, has led to a profound shift in the priorities of museums, which are often more concerned with the attractiveness of their programming than they are with the development of their collections through new acquisitions, or with research on their collections. Their financial health depends on the number of visitors they can draw, and the number of visitors depends, in turn, on media exposure whose conditions are subject to the logic of what we will call the event imperative [l\u2019imp\u00e9ratif \u00e9v\u00e8nementie<\/em>l]. Developing ideas for exhibitions, arranging for them to be held, holding them and securing sufficient media exposure\u2014these tasks are now taking up more and more of the institution\u2019s professional resources, and are doing so in a difficult economic climate. Exhibitions do, of course, generate revenue but organizing them is very expensive. They increasingly require partnerships between museums, as well as fairly prestigious collections to serve as a medium of exchange; and this situation is detrimental to most Canadian and Qu\u00e9bec institutions, whose collections (in whole or in part) often spark little interest beyond our own borders.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The manner in which the concept of the event is now primarily understood in the triumphalist context of our culture industries and social networks becomes paradoxical as soon as one notices that, far from exemplifying the logic of a rupture in time, of the unpredictability of what lies ahead, it henceforth appears to be the product of programming. Our e-calendars and our posts on social media attest quite clearly to this state of affairs, insofar as events appear there as discrete units of temporal measurement, regulating and shaping the time of our activities, much in the manner of minutes and hours. With these considerations in mind, CI\u00c9CO intends to contribute\u2014above and beyond the anticipated production of new knowledge relating to the current uses of collections\u2014to the advancement of learning in museum studies and the social sciences. The latest publications on the notion of the event (Dosse: 2012) do not appear to take account of its most recent epistemological migration from the field of history to that of communications, and they continue to view the event as if history and philosophy alone still determined its primary meaning. Museums, on the other hand, have certainly noticed this shift, whose epistemological consequences and impact on collections require greater theoretical development.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This reflection on the concept of the event is intended to trace the epistemological migration of the concept across the fields of history (Braudel: 1969 and Dosse: 2012); political thought (Arendt: 1989); philosophy (Deleuze: 1969\/1990, Derrida: 1972\/10982, Derrida: 2001, Foucault: 1966\/1991, and Ric\u0153ur: 1983-1985), anthropology (Aug\u00e9: 1984 and Olazabal: 2006), museum studies (Tobelem: 2010) and communications studies (Davallon: 1992). One of the issues here will involve measuring the extent to which this migration has been in-and-out-of-sync with contemporary definitions of the event.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bibliographic References:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

ARENDT, Hannah (1989). Penser l\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement<\/em>\u00a0: recueil d\u2019articles politiques<\/em>, Paris: Belin.<\/p>\n

AUG\u00c9, Marc (1984). \u201cOrdre biologique et ordre social\u00a0: la maladie, forme \u00e9l\u00e9mentaire de l\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement\u201d, AUG\u00c9, Marc, Claudine, HERZLICH (ed.). Le Sens du mal<\/em>\u00a0: Anthropologie, histoire, sociologie de la maladie, <\/em>Paris: \u00c9ditions des Archives contemporaines, p. 35-92.<\/p>\n

BRAUDEL, Fernand (1969). \u201cHistoire et sciences sociales\u00a0: La longue dur\u00e9e\u201d, \u00c9crits sur l\u2019histoire, <\/em>Paris: Flammarion, p. 41-83.<\/p>\n

CROW, Thomas (1985). Painters and Public Life in Eighteenth-century Paris, <\/em>New Haven\u2028(Ct.): Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

DAVALLON, Jean (1992). \u201cLe mus\u00e9e est-il vraiment un m\u00e9dia?\u201d, Public et mus\u00e9es<\/em>, 2, December, p. 99- 123.<\/p>\n

DELEUZE, Gilles (1969\/1990). The logic of sense<\/em>, New York: Columbia Press.<\/p>\n

DERRIDA, Jacques (1972\/1982). \u201cSignature, event, context\u201d. Margins of Philosophy<\/em>, Brington (UK): The Harvest Press, p. 307-330.<\/p>\n

DERRIDA, Jacques, Alexis, NOUSS, Gad, SOUSSANA (2001). Dire l\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement, est-ce possible ?, <\/em>Paris: L\u2019Harmattan.<\/p>\n

DOSSE, Fran\u00e7ois (2012). Renaissance de l\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement: un d\u00e9fi pour l\u2019historien, entre Sphynx et Ph\u00e9nix<\/em>, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.<\/p>\n

FOUCAULT, Michel (1966\/1973). The order of things:<\/em> An archaeology of the human sciences<\/em>, New York: Vintage Book.<\/p>\n

HAMON, Philippe (1989). Expositions, litt\u00e9rature et architecture au XIXe<\/sup> si\u00e8cle, <\/em>Paris: J. Corti.<\/p>\n

HAXTHAUSEN, Charles (2002). The Two Art Histories: the Museum and the University, <\/em>Williamstown (Mass.): Sterling and Francis Clark Art Institute.<\/p>\n

LACROIX, Laurier (2008). \u201cLa collection comme temps de la Nation\u00a0: les premi\u00e8res acquisitions du Mus\u00e9e de la province de Qu\u00e9bec en 1920\u201d. Les Cahiers des dix<\/em>, n\u00b0 62, p. 123- 151. Online source [http:\/\/www.werudit.org\/apropos\/utilisation.html].<\/p>\n

LAMOUREUX, Johanne (2007). Profession, historienne de l\u2019art<\/em>, Montr\u00e9al: Presses de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Montr\u00e9al.<\/p>\n

MAINARDI, Patricia (1987). Art and politics of the Second Empire: the Universal Expositions of 1855 and 1867, <\/em>New Haven (Ct.): Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

OLAZABAL, Jean-Ignace, Joseph J. L\u00c9VY (Dir.) (2006). L\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement en anthropologie, concepts et terrains, <\/em>Qu\u00e9bec: Presses de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 Laval.<\/p>\n

RICOEUR, Paul (1983-1985\/1984-1988). Time and Narrative<\/em>, Volumes 1-3, Chicago and London: University of Press.<\/p>\n

TOBELEM, Jean-Michel (2010). Le nouvel \u00e2ge des mus\u00e9es<\/em>\u00a0: les institutions culturelles au d\u00e9fi de la gestion, <\/em>Paris: Armand Colin.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Research premises   Over the past two or three decades, the museum has become a focus of university study through the proliferation and diversification of museology, or museum studies, programs. […]","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":7,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"page_actualites.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/cieco.umontreal.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/cieco.umontreal.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/cieco.umontreal.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cieco.umontreal.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cieco.umontreal.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"http:\/\/cieco.umontreal.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":722,"href":"http:\/\/cieco.umontreal.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2\/revisions\/722"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/cieco.umontreal.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}