THE PROBLEM OF CENTRALIZATION OF MUSEUM AFFAIRS IN DISCUSSIONS DURING 1917 (BASED ON THE COUNSEL MATERIALS OF THE INSTITUTE FOR HISTORY OF ARTS) Cover Image

ПРОБЛЕМА ЦЕНТРАЛИЗАЦИИ МУЗЕЙНОГО ДЕЛА В ДИСКУССИЯХ 1917 ГОДА (ПО МАТЕРИАЛАМ СОВЕЩАНИЯ В ИНСТИТУТЕ ИСТОРИИ ИСКУССТВ)
THE PROBLEM OF CENTRALIZATION OF MUSEUM AFFAIRS IN DISCUSSIONS DURING 1917 (BASED ON THE COUNSEL MATERIALS OF THE INSTITUTE FOR HISTORY OF ARTS)

Author(s): Vitaliy Gennadievich Ananev
Subject(s): History, Cultural history, Museology & Heritage Studies, Library and Information Science, Preservation, Sociology, Social history, Recent History (1900 till today), Sociology of Culture, Sociology of the arts, business, education
Published by: Казанский (Приволжский) федеральный университет
Keywords: museum; museology; preservation of monuments; Institute for History of Arts; A.A. Miller; P.P. Weiner; N.M. Mogilyansky;

Summary/Abstract: The paper is devoted to the problem of centralization and unification of museum affairs in the professional debates during 1917. The main issue is analysis of the archival materials of the counsel on museum affairs and protection of monuments, which was held in the spring – summer of 1917 at the Institute for History of Arts (Petrograd). The author analyzes the main reports on this problem made by such prominent museum figures as A.A. Miller, P.P. Weiner, and N.M. Mogilyansky. A connection is established between their content and the general level of museology at that time. The author establishes a link of these ideas to some initiatives in the cultural politics of the post-October period. During this period, there are two main issues in the framework of this discussion. These ideas are linked to some initiatives in the cultural politics of the post-October period. There are two main issues in the framework of this discussion during the period under consideration. The first question is creation of a government body to manage all museum affairs of the country. A.A. Miller and N.M. Mogilyansky write about the structure of museum management. P.P. Weiner argues for the body of monument protection. The second question is redistribution of museum collections, evaluation of their composition on the basis of subject matter disciplines. On the one hand, these discussions show the high level of development of museology in Russia in the early 20th century. On the other hand, they show that the discourse of museology as an independent academic discipline has not yet received sufficient development. Based on the Russian material here, we can trace the transition from the pre-scientific stage of museology to the empirically descriptive stage.