English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The 1917 Revolution had a significant impact on all aspects of life in Russia. The museum field also experienced its influence. The new conceptual framework of culture determined the soon formation of a new conceptual model of the museum. Its final codification occurred after the First All-Russian Museum Congress in 1930. However, in order to better understand the specific features of this model, it is necessary to consider its prehistory. Such an understanding is the aim of this article. The author analyzes materials from the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which has not previously attracted researchers’ attention. He uses classical methods of source studies (textology and historical source criticism) and close reading as the main epistemological tool for research. These are materials from the commission established in August 1920 to prepare for the unification of the Hermitage and the Russian Museum into a single Museum of World Art and Culture. The new authorities made this decision on August 2, 1920. The commission included representatives of the academic world and representatives of the new government. The meeting was headed by S.A. Zhebelev, a prominent professor of ancient history. Very soon, the commission turned to the consideration of general issues of the museum. At several of its meetings, it discussed the question of the relationship between basic museological functions: research and education. This issue was not considered in the abstract dimension, but through the specifics of museum work, in particular, of exhibition activities. All the participants recognized the importance of the educational activities of the museum, but at the same time recognized these activities as subordinate to research work. Representatives of the new power almost did not participate in this discussion, although they actively expressed themselves and debated on other issues, for example, on the question of the direct merging and redistribution of museum collections. Another issue that arose in connection with the discussion of museum functions was the issue of training museum professionals. In general, the nature of the discussed issues and the very content of the discussion demonstrate that Russian museology passed through an empirically-descriptive stage in its development during this period. Representatives of the new government did not yet actively intervene in the development of the model of an ideal museum. For representatives of the academic community, research was more important than education as a basic museum function.

“Museum Construction Should Be Science-Based”: On the History of the Conceptual Model of the Museum in the Early Soviet Period