Collecting objects is a natural feature of human beings. The first ever historically attested collection was in the antique Babylon. Since then, a few millennia later, collections became museums and they are, continuously, redefined.

The last “classical” definition of museums was that adopted by ICOM in Vienna, in 2007: “A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment”. Starting with 2016, when the ICOM General Conference took place in Milan, the world has changed. The wind of changing came as a tsunami over museums, with a powerful demand for adapting the institutions to the society. The wave of political correctness and woke movement have shacked the tranquil world of museums. A revolution in defining museums was asked. The new definition, motioned in 2019, in Kyoto, was a true shock: “Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people. Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing”.

The change was so radical, that the motion failed and the decision was postponed for 2022, in Prague, when a much calmer definition was, almost unanimously, adopted: “A museum is a not-for-profit, permanent institution in the service of society that researches, collects, conserves, interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible and inclusive, museums foster diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally and with the participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection and knowledge sharing”.

The pressure on the museums was put by people inside them: professionals coming from the active civic movements, fighting for democratising the cultural institutions. In their vision, museums should not be passive witnesses of political life, but true fighters for values like social inclusion and sustainable development, for human rights (especially for all kind of minorities) and equality.  

Though the most radical definition was not adopted, a significant proportion of curators considered that there is an open conflict between museums and their public, that a part of the public does not consider museums to be their true property, as they don’t have a word to say in the way exhibitions are organised. Exhibitions are considered true powerful statements of curators, expressions of their will against the powerless public. Is it true?

The answer is not so easy. When a musician chose the repertoire, the public is not asked. When a theatre director makes a certain artistic choice, it is a very personal one. Why should museums be different? The answer lays in a common believe (a wrong one, in my opinion), that museums are not personal works of art, but collective approaches. Unlike theatres and cinema halls, museums are generally considered expressions of the entire society, and, thus, they should convey the general spirit of the community. This is the main reason for which public feels frequently to be expelled from museums, having not a word to say.

The public installation initiated by Mischa Kuball tries to give a voice to those who feel to be frustrated about the “dictatorship” of curators against them. It is an experiment. Nobody could give a final and straight answer about what the public wants, first of all, because, usually, the public has a unique voice and opinion only in times of crises, when people are united against something. Leaving to individuals the freedom to express their own thoughts, without an external pressure, without a guidance and in, more or less, peaceful times, would issue spread out opinions.

Maybe, this is the most powerful message of Mischa Kuball’s challenge: democracy it is not about unanimity. Once the walls will land, themselves, in a museum, they would speak about differences in opinions, in thoughts and attitudes, about the huge diversity reflected in democratic societies. if walls could tell is a project which could not be accepted in dictatorships and, even if it would be, would prove nothing. In the end, true museums are truly democratic institutions.

Virgil Ștefan Nițulescu, museologist, manager of the National Museum of the Romanian Peasant (2010 – 2016 and since 2019), with a PhD in History at the “Lucian Blaga” University in Sibiu. A former curator in the Ialomița County Museum (1984 – 1988) and in the National Museum of History of Romania (1988 – 1990), Nițulescu joined the Ministry of Culture, as counsellor and general director (1990 – 1995) and, then, the House of Deputies, as counsellor to the Committee on Culture (1995 – 2005). He occupied different positions in the Ministry of Culture (Secretary of State, counsellor to the minister, General Secretary, Head of Cabinet (2005 – 2009 and 2017 – 2019) and in the General Secretariat of the Government (as governmental inspector, 2009 – 2010) and worked, as director, editor-in-chief and editorial team member for the Romanian Journal for Museums, Revista muzeelor (1995 – 2025). Worked as associate professor for different universities and had many positions in some international professional organisations, as International Council of Museums, European Museum Forum or European Museum Academy, since 1993. Nițulescu has published hundreds of articles, both in scientific journals as in cultural magazines.