The very structure of the definition has also undergone a major modification, which is little discussed. As early as 1946, the definition of the museum states that many establishments, not specifically called museums, are part of the mu- seum field, such as zoos or libraries with exhibition spaces. It was mainly from 1961 that a more precise list of such institutions was established and integrated into the statutes. For more than forty years, that list grew to reflect the main developments in the museum world. The 2001 list included nine categories, such as science centres and planetariums, non-profit art galleries, etc. For ICOM, it was necessary to specify in its statutes which categories it recognised as its members, and thus to integrate the organisations that the Council consi- dered able to contribute positively to the museum field. This long list has now been removed from the statutes. Instead of continually adding new categories, it was decided to retain only the first part of the definition, namely a general phrase seeking to clarify the functions and characteristics of museums. Having developed this list, ICOM recognised the role of the definition contained in its statutes: first and foremost, it was to specify who the members of the or- ganisation could be and, by deduction, which members could not be included. For example, the ‘non-profit’ nature of the museum from a museological point of view is not a discriminating factor in defining what a museum is. But ICOM wished to include in its members only museums that do not seek to develop their activities for profit.
The definition itself (‘a permanent non-profit institution serving society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, preserves, studies, exhibits
and transmits the tangible and intangible heritage of mankind and its envi- ronment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment’) is structured as follow: (1) two legal elements (permanent and non-profit-making institution); (2) two elements referring to the beneficiaries of the museum; (3) the five func- tions of the museum (acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, transmis- sion); (4) the object on which it works (the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment); and (5) the ultimate aims of the museum (education, study, enjoyment). We could summarise these different elements in the following way:
Legal (2) – Beneficiaries (2) – Functions (5) – Object (1) – Aims (3)
The number in brackets represents the number of concepts associated with these categories.
But we could also decide to count the number of words associated with each category in order to get an impression of the importance (represented by ro- man numerals below):
Legal (V) – Beneficiaries (V) – Functions (V) – Object (V) – Aims (IV)
The description of the beneficiaries – serving society and its development, open to the public – appears quite long for two concepts (society and public). Interestingly, the number of words devoted to each category appears pretty si- milar. Considering the structure, even in the 2007 definition, some differences appear between the French and English versions. The order of the Aims in French is ‘Study, Education and Enjoyment’ (étude, éducation et délectation), while it starts with Education in English. That order is significant, as it under- lines some priorities in museum work, even though these aims would appear to be equal.
This structure has largely evolved over time. For instance, the structure of the first definition of 1946 was much shorter, but it contained the embryo of the list of institutions that would be considered as museums:
Object (2) – Beneficiaries (1) – List (3)
The definition of 1961 acknowledged the aims of the museum as they are de- fined today (study, education and enjoyment), while some legal condition (per- manent institution) were added. Four categories of museum types were added: Legal (1) – Functions (2) – Aims (3) – Objects (1) – List (4)
Does the structure of two museological definitions of museums – that of Peter van Mensch and of Judith Spielbauer – reveal some differences? Peter van Mensch describes a museum as ‘a permanent museological institution which preserves collections of corporal documents and generates knowledge about these corporal documents for the public benefit from these’ (1992, 232). Legal (1) – Functions (2) – Objects (1) – Beneficiaries (1)
If the terms used here are sometimes different, the structure is partly the same as the 1961 ICOM definition, although Van Mensch does not specify aims, and speaks about beneficiaries in a very general term (public benefit). Spielbauer, on the contrary, presents the museum from a larger perspective:
“The established museum is a means to an end, not the end itself. These ends have been stated in many ways. They include varying perspec- tives on broadening an individual’s perception of the interdependence of the social, aesthetic and natural worlds in which he lives by provi- ding information and experience and fostering an understanding of self within this widening context. The increase and dissemination of knowledge, the improvement of the quality of life and preservation for future generations are all included in the usual parade of rationales”
(Spielbauer, 1987). Aims (3) – Benefits (3)
Spielbauer’s definition focuses mainly on museums’ aims, and does not in- clude beneficiaries, but benefits (increase and dissemination of knowledge, etc.). That definition was not proposed for practical reasons but for theoretical reasons, and insists on the values of museums much more than its technical aspect, echoing Stephen Weil’s famous analysis of the national toothpick mu- seum that, although absurd, could be recognised as a museum with the help of the ICOM museum definition (Weil, 1990).
But some definitions established for practical reasons, like the one adopted by the (British) Museums Association (MA), adopted in 1998, might also appear different: ‘Museums enable people to explore collections for inspiration, lear- ning and enjoyment. They are institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artefacts and specimens, which they hold in trust for society’ (Mu- seums Association, 1998). The structure first describes the beneficiaries of the museum with a less abstract term than ‘public’ or ‘society’. It then presents the action of the beneficiaries on the object around which the museum functions (here again, the term ‘collection’ is less abstract). Then three functions (not five) are mentioned, and again (4) the objects of museum work, with, finally, a legal characteristic. The structure of the two sentences could thus be described as:
Beneficiaries (1) – Action (1) – Object (1) – Aims (3) – Functions (3) – Objects (2) – Legal (1) – Beneficiaries (1)
Overall, therefore, if both definitions (MA and ICOM) contain the same type of information, the place given to the beneficiaries – in the MA definition, and the relegation of the institutional or legal elements to the end of the second sentence (a permanent non-profit institution) – illustrate another facet of the museum definition, less technical than that of ICOM. That seems to fit with the principal aim of the latter definition that appears in the statutes of the wor- ld organisation. But most of the students who study museology, for instance,
learn that definition for other purposes, mostly linked with general knowledge of the museum world, and do not care much about legal references. The ICOM museum definition, for the same reason, does not directly address to the pu- blic or decision-makers who would like to understand why public authorities should finance museums. The MA, by insisting on visitors (people), seems to be conceived with another strategy in mind, designed not only for museum professionals but also for other stakeholders.