Global Journal of Human-Social Science, A: Arts and Humanities, Volume 21 Issue 12

Sastre, museologist, and Xabier Ballbé, Director of the European Heritage Centre Foundation of Barcelona. All of them were members of ICOFOM, and some of them took an active part in the debates and had a direct relationship with Stránský, with whom they exchanged ideas and opinions on the concept of museology and on the situation of museums in Spain and the rest of the world at that time. However, despite their continued presence for a decade, there was little acknowledgement of these meetings in Spain, and the Spanish ICOM itself did not report on them. Among other reasons, this was because Spanish museologists were more focused on the practical work of museums, which required urgent intervention, and did not see the need to dwell on the theoretical analysis of museums, nor were people aware of Stránský's epistemological proposals because his writings had hardly been translated from Czech. Moreover, Stránský’s proposals on museology involved a great effort of reflection and research that was not easy to carry out. This fact meant a delay in incorporating Spanish museologists into museological study within the international sphere, preventing such theories, which were being developed throughout Europe, from being known, studied, and shared within Spain. From 1994 onwards, there were no Spanish museologists present at the ICOFOM debates until 2002, when we had the sole and brief intervention of Silvia Ventosa Muñoz (2002), curator of the Museum of Decorative Arts in Barcelona. It was from 2006 onwards that Francisca Hernández, professor of museology at the Complutense University of Madrid, joined the debate and publicized in Spain an work carried out by members of ICOFOM (Hernández 2006, 2006 a). Since then, Spanish participation has become increasingly continuous and diverse. The work of ICOFOM and of all the theoreticians of museology, among whom Stránský occupies a prominent position, is now justly well known and acknowledged. Among other Spanish museologists who have joined the ICOFOM colloquia is Jesús Pedro Lorente. It is worth highlighting his intervention in the conference given in 2015 on New Trends in Museology (2016). Mikel Asensio and his research team also participated in the ICOFOM Study Series on Empowering the Visitor: Process, Progress, Protest (2012). The latest contributions have been made by Gloria Romanello (2015, 2017), from the University of Barcelona, Sara Pérez López (2015), Olaia Fontal Merillas and Sofía Marín Cepeda (2015) and Silvia García Ceballos (2015) from the University of Valladolid, Conxa Rodà (2015) from the Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya, Francisca Hernández (2016) and Óscar Navajas (2017), from the University of Alcalá de Henares, on the current state of museology in Spain. During these years, the above Spanish museologists collaborated on different issues in the dialogues organized by ICOFOM. They presented their ideas on museology and contributed to enriching the museological debate. The following are the topics they dealt with and their main contributions and interrelations with Stránský. a) Methodology and Interdisciplinarity in Museology One of Stránský's (1981:71) questions is whether museology can become an independent scientific discipline. However, he considers that it is first necessary to know whether it has the characteristics of a science. This fact implies that systems theory must be used as one of the determining characteristics of science since it is through this theory that students can be equipped with the knowledge and methodology that will enable them to solve any museological problem they may encounter ( Ibid . 76). In addition, from a philosophical-methodological point of view, for knowledge to be adequate to its object and to show its content, it must be developed based on a theoretical and systematic plan in the form of a theory ( Ibid . 74). Thus, museology must have a solid base for positioning itself regarding its relationship with other disciplines. In this respect, Rosario Carrillo (1983: 52), starting from the hypothesis that museology is a science in making, has highlighted the need to specify the evolutionary stages that have taken place from the perspectives of museological historiography, epistemology, and history. For this reason, there is a need for communication between different branches of science. Indeed, she considers it very positive that museologists give their own opinions, despite the disparity in museological criteria and approaches. She highlights the interdisciplinary nature of the methodology used in exhibitions, one that considers general systems theory, theories of communication and decision-making, semiotic analysis, group dynamics, network theory, or aspects related to ecology and economics. This has helped enrich the scientific and museological vocabulary with a proliferation of new terms that have become part of museological science. According to the same author ( Ibid .: 54), the debates at the London Colloquium in 1983 showed how different participants tried to redefine the concept of museology or museological knowledge from a personal point of view. This was the most obvious sign that the idea of scientific museology had not yet been consolidated. Moreover, there was no unity of criteria regarding the method, system structure, and object of museological science. When referring to museology, participants were aware that there is theoretical museology and practical museology or museography, but each one approached them from different perspectives. Stránský sees the difference in criteria as a natural consequence of the current stage of the practical application of museology and considers that museological science needs a different level evident on Volume XXI Issue XII Version I 24 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 A © 2021 Global Journals Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský’s Museological Impact on Spain