13
Redefining The Lebanese Past Tahan, L.G. 2005. Redefining the Lebanese Past. In Museums and Cultural Identity. Museum International No. 227 Vol. 57 (3). UNESCO. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford: UK. pp.86-93. By: Lina Gebrail Tahan, Ph.D Summary & brief explanation by: Noha Qotb CHM Master’s degree student Cairo April 15 th , 2014

Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

Redefining The Lebanese Past

Tahan, L.G. 2005. Redefining the Lebanese Past. In Museums and Cultural Identity. Museum International No. 227 Vol. 57 (3). UNESCO. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford: UK. pp.86-93.

By: Lina Gebrail Tahan, Ph.D

Summary & brief explanation by:

Noha Qotb

CHM Master’s degree student

Cairo April 15th, 2014

Page 2: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

Authenticity versus Inauthenticity within the

Museum Space in Lebanon

Page 3: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

Lebanon’s heritage was suffering from an ‘openwound’ that became the symbol of an ‘injuredidentity’ in which the cultural diversity ofLebanese society became an enemy subjectparticularly in the museum space.

Page 4: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

The National Museum of Beirut (NMB) openedits door to the public in 1937 and was officiallyinaugurated in 1942. It was the main depositoryof archaeological artefacts excavated in thecountry. The advent of the Civil War forced themuseum to close its doors for a period oftwenty-two years (1975–97).

Page 5: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

The NMB, with its Egyptian revival architectural style, was heavily bombarded and damaged as it was located on the green line that divided Beirut into two conflicting zones: East and West.

Thus, the NMB became not only a

‘witness’ but also a ‘victim’ of thebloody conflict while carrying in itsmidst a number of politicalideologies.

Page 6: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon
Page 7: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

Hygia, the goddess of healing, is used very symbolically on the poster of the museum of Beirut which was designed in 1997, and where she symbolizes the ‘Renaissance’ or the ‘Revival’ of the Museum from the Civil War (1975-1990).

Page 8: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

Now the word ‘mathaf’ has been vigorously & obsessively cleansed of its twenty-year long connotations: itemerges clean, shiny, serene, perpetual and hollow, with no story to tell.The view that ‘is necessary that people come to terms with the processes that have affected and continue to affect their place’ does not seem to find an echo within the NMB.

Page 9: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

The National Museum of Beirut, the lack of authenticity in the space ?

Page 10: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

The NMB has used the goddess of healing as its logo rather than the Middle Bronze Age figurine which is used as a logo on some museum leaflets and as a logo for the Ministry of Tourism.

There is a play on the words of ‘revival’ and ‘healing’ and two explanations here come to mind: One is the need to get rid of the ‘wounds of the war,’ making the museum appear shiny and devoid of any war scars that is why there is a healing process in progress.And two is that ‘Revival’ always happens after healing; and the museum needed to emerge as a place not of conflict showing the division of Beirut between East and West, but as ‘a place of contact’.

Page 11: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

At this stage, the healing subject is not

subtle but shows that what has torn

Lebanese society for several decades (i.e.

the Phoenician/Arab Rift) is being solved

by the idea of ‘Revival’.

This is still a subtle conflict in Lebanese

society and it is still found within the

museum space, in terms of representation

of what is ‘Phoenician’ and what is ‘Arab’.

So, the idea of ‘Revival’ finds itself out of

place in the context of the actual museum

as it contradicts the message inside the

space of the NMB, that of a museum

devoid of a reconciliation process and

affecting the understanding of collective

memory.

This reveals that the NMB lacks

authenticity in exhibiting the Lebanese

past and does not show what their cultural

identity is about.

Page 12: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

“ A museum is not only an educational institution, but also a placethat triggers thoughts, communicates with human emotions andrecalls memory. In a museum space, that memory is stimulated bylooking at artefacts and engaging with the space. This power ofinvoking memory is extremely important and is considered as partof an authentic museum experience.”

Page 13: Authenticity vs. Inauthenticity within the Museum Space in Lebanon

Tahan, L.G. 2005. Redefining the Lebanese Past. In Museums and Cultural Identity. Museum International No. 227 Vol. 57 (3). UNESCO. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford: UK. pp.86-93.

Conclusion:

• Lebanese museums should become ‘barometers’ of urban culture in the new millennium. They should not only be ‘containers’ of artefacts, but also offer a spatial experience that is shared with others.

• The museum should become a resource, a ‘lively space’ that enlightens the public on certain themes and encourages certain social debates.

• Thus, a museum should become the ideal vehicle of peace where ‘truth’ and ‘reconciliation’ must work hand in hand in order to exhibit authenticity.