Southeast Asian Museums : On a Slow Path to Maturity
The museum in the Western sense was formulated in this region during the 18 th century, but because of social, political, and economic situations has not developed consistently. In the West, the definition of museums has gradually changed, moving from the post-museum (Hooper-Greenhill), to contact zone (James Clifford), and civic laboratories (Tony Bennett), each signaling a particular shift in how museums are imagined (Barrett 2011). These define the museum variously as a gathering place, a venue for collaborative action and interaction, and as a part of the community. Recently, there has been more focus and debate on the relationship between museums and the communities they serve. This kind of definition has not been coherently applied to museums in the Southeast Asian context. It is impossible to address the Southeast Asian museum as a whole, because each country in the region has a specific context and these are quasi-incomparable. In the prenation state, museums in this region were introduced and constructed according to the Western concept, whether by the colonial powers or through auto-colonization. From the colonial period to the present, museums in Southeast Asian have only slightly changed in each country according to their economic and socio-political contexts. This means that Southeast Asian Museums: On a Slow Path to Maturity
Museums and the Public Sphere
List of Images vii Introduction 1 1 The Public Sphere 15 2 Historical Discourses of the Museum 45 3 The Museum as Public Space 81 4 Audience, Community, and Public 118 5 The Museum as Public Intellectual 143 Conclusion 164 References 175 Acknowledgments 191 Index 193
Visual Studies and the Iconic Turn
What are the challenges and opportunities posed to the dominant interpretive paradigms of visual studies by the rise of a new fascination with the object? How can the study of visual culture respond to what has been variously termed a `pictorial' or an `iconic' turn? Can this phenomenological concern for the power of the image to determine its own reception be incorporated into approaches that emphasize its political implications? Is it possible to conceive of the image as both a representation and a presentation at the same time?