英语论文网

omic knowledge based upon the ideas of objective observation, visibility, mathematization and ambition of a science of order. The eighteenth century witnesses the principles of scientific taxonomy in museum displays which stress the observable differences between things rather than hidden resemblances; the representative function of objects were accorded priority over the exotic or unusual in series. The period from the late eighteenth century sees further changes, in particular an ‘opening up’ of the museum to a much broader public. Things were inserted within evolutionary series representing the flow of time of rather than parts of taxonomic tables.

 

The museums exhibitions constitute the relations between objects in sequences, and are bound up with the development of distinctive modern ways of seeing the world. ‘The exhibitionary complex’, as Bennett described, involving the transfer of objects from the enclosed and private domains into progressively more open and public arenas so as to inscribing and transmitting the messages of power (Bennett 1994). Exhibition is connected to knowledge production, making exhibitions educative for and legible to the new mass public. As Bennett argues, this was also bound up with ideas about transforming the public, and producing citizens who would themselves take on the task of self-education and improving themselves. He applied Foucault’s understanding of disciplinary power to analyze the exhibitionary complex of the museum, and related it to the rhetorical strategies of power suggested by Gramsci’s theory of hegemony. Political rationality as he claimed, ‘concerns how we should understand the role that museums were called on to play in relation to the social order and the part that the new principles of public legibility were expected to perform in enabling museums to fulfill that role.’ (Bennett 1998b: 26)

 

The exhibition of museum functions as an automated learning environment. Vidler argued that the museum should aim to ‘speak to all eyes’ (Bennett 1998b), to make nature readable, coding nature’s messages into the artifact environment of the museum (Bennett 1998b). In this way, visitors to the museum are envisaged as an autodidactic one. With clear and detailed labeling of exhibits, museum functions as an automated learning environment-that is, as a collection of objects whose meaning is to be rendered auto-intellectual through a combination of transparent principles of display and clear labeling. It is need to arrange and label museum displays in ways calculated to enhance their public legibility by making their meaning instantly readable for the new mass public. The visitors are never in a relation of direct, unmediated contact with the ‘reality of the artifact’, hence, with the ‘real stuff’ of the past. This illusion, this fetishism of the past, is actually an effect of discourse itself.

 

Bennett is interest in the proposition that museums should ‘speak to the eyes’. He describes the method of typological method, putting forward by Henry Pitt Rivers, which aspires to order the arrangement of ethnological objects in a manner to allow the direction and significance of h本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。