Sharon McDonald begins her book, A Companion to Museum Studies, with a short introduction. This introduction opens with a commentary on the growth of museum studies. McDonald discusses this growth in relation to the breadth of disciplines involved and the increased number of books, journals and courses related. She then presents the goal of her book. McDonald writes, “This Companion to Museum Studies is intended to act as a guide through the thronging multi-disciplinary landscape; and to contribute to and develop cross-disciplinary dialogue about museums” (1).  McDonald attempts to achieve this objective by presenting and incorporating a wide variety of perspectives concerning museums and their roles. Soon after these opening remarks, McDonald begins a discussion of old and new museology. Her launching point is the work of Peter Vergo and his book The New Museology. McDonald comments on how museum studies have shifted from questions of “how” to questions of “why.” She discusses how new museology is more “theoretical and humanistic” (2). Following this initial discussion, McDonald gives three areas in which new museology focuses and is expanding. The main focus of the introduction revolves around these three tenants:

I. Understanding the meanings of objects as situated in context, not inherent meaning.

II. Expanding legitimate consideration to matters previously outside of “museology proper,” such as commercialism and entertainment (2).

III. Increasing the consideration concerning how visitors perceive the museum.

 

In her own words, “these three areas of emphasis demonstrate a shift to seeing the museum and the meaning of its contents not as fixed and bounded, but as contextual and contingent” (3).

The main body of the book’s introduction further elaborates on these three main areas of emphasis. In this discussion, McDonald deals with ideas of Deconstruction and identity politics. She remarks how the effects of the social and cultural movements of Post-Modernism have been reflected within museums. “Museums became, in short, sites at which some of the most contested and thorny cultural and epistemological questions of the late twentieth century were fought out.” (4). McDonald then connects the museum’s role as cultural commentator with the increase of museums in the second half of the twentieth century. Gordon Fyfe called this expansion “the museum phenomenon” (4). McDonald argues that this phenomenon is partly, if not mostly, due to museums’ widening commentarial role. She emphasizes the practical implications of new museology. The theory directly affects policy and practice (8). McDonald concludes with an overview of the book’s parts and relating abstracts.

Museums have become battle grounds. As western culture struggles with the implications of Post-Modernism, the very nature of reality is challenged. Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction of everything to its cultural bones responded to naïve and spoon fed perceptions of the world. It helped challenge the status quo and expose the wrongful treatment of marginalized people groups. Yet, have we gone too far? Have we adopted the abstract in the place of reality? If everything, including art, literature, philosophy, tables, flowers, monkeys, can be reduced to a direct product of culture and environment, everything is dependent on perspective. Everything becomes a matter of relativity. With the complete relativity of Post-Modernism, we cannot value anything above anything. Everything is equal. The individual creates value. This philosophy has directly affected art museums. Questions concerning the nature of art have been fundamentally challenged. If value, especially artistic value, is relative, anything can be art. If an individual claims that something is art, relativity validates that claim. Exhibits like Marcel Duchamp’sFountain, have emphatically proved this point. If viewed charitably, we can understand the intentions of such art. It helps display the absurdity and grotesque aspects of practical life. It is deeply personal. Exhibits like Duchamp’s challenge the status quo. If the status quo is not challenged, we can achieve nor progress. Progress necessitates change; however, the implications of relativism do not include the ability to evaluate. We cannot recognize fault or accomplishment. We cannot appraise new forms because nothing is better or worse. The fundamental implications of Post-Modern relativism obliterate any scale of judgment outside the individual. There is no good or bad. These are relative labels that cannot be challenged. An unadulterated Post-Modernism demands the acceptance of everything as fundamentally equal. This destroys evaluation and burns progress with it. If everything is art, there is no art. If everything is everything, there is nothing. We become masters of our own world of nothing.

And we can accept this. Through games of ignorance, Post-Modernism defends its legitimacy. One cannot prove that we are not in another dimension. One cannot prove that he knows everything there is to know about an orange, much less our existence. Every claim about reality is attacked with the challenge of ignorance. After a long breath of conversation, we must nod our heads. We cannot prove everything about everything. We cannot prove anything. But, this does not necessitate acceptance. We do not have to abandon human perception. We do not have to regard a urinal as equal to The Night Watch. We can believe in progress. We can believe in value. We can believe in art. Perhaps, there is a chance for something real. Museums across the globe face the challenges of Post-Modernism. They are the battle ground for existence. What will they exhibit? How far will new museology adopt the dangers of Post-Modernism? Museum studies cannot be marginalized. The cultural struggle museums face is of paramount importance. What will they decide? Perhaps it’s too early to say.