PROJEKT, IMENOVAN SLOVENSKI
ETNOGRAFSKI MUZEJ
Inja Smerdel
IZVLEČEK
V besedilu z naslovom Projekt.
imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej je z
nekaterimi bistvenimi sestavinami podan
prerez skozi dogajanje z muzejem in v muzeju
od njegovih začetkov do danes; upodobljeni
so načrti arhitekture in namembnosti njegovih
bodočih prostorov v stavbnem sestavu na
Metelkovi; predstavljeni so osnutki in druge
zamisli za stalno razstavo v bodoči muzejski
razstavni palači in pojasnjena je pot, ki je do
njih pripeljala.
ABSTRACT
The article entitled "The project called
the Slovene Ethnographic Museum" discusses
some of the museum's essential constituents
and provides a cross-section of what occurred
to the museum and in it from its beginnings
to the present day; it illustrates the
architectural plans and the envisaged
functions of its future halls in the complex
of buildings situated in Metelkova Street; it
also presents proposals and other ideas
concerning the permanent exhibition in the
museum's future exhibition palace and
explains the road that led to them.
UVODNA BESEDA
Osnovni namen besedila, zraslega pod gornjim naslovom, je bu enovita predstavitev
osnutkov in nekaterih drugih zamisli, nastalih in porojenih v okviru enoletnega snovanja
stalne muzejske razstave, ki jo bodo delovna skupina Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja
in njeni zunanji sodelavci postavljali v bodoči razstavni hiši v stavbnem sestavu na
Metelkovi.
Ker se je zdelo smiselno omenjeno predstavitev umestiti v širši kontekst celostne
zasnove prenovljenega muzeja in z njo končati prerez skozi dogajanje z muzejem in v
muzeju od njegovih začetkov, upodobiti arhitekturo in namembnost njegovih bodočih
prostorov ter pojasniti pot do nastanka vsebinskih osnutkov za stalno muzejsko razstavo,
je pričujoče besedilo širše, sestavljeno iz ustreznih poglavij. Oblikovala in ubesedila sem
ga na osnovi nekaterih etnoloških in muzeoloških člankov in razprav, videnih razstav,
predavanj, zamisli in premnogih neformalnih diskusij.
17
Inj a Smerdel
USTANOVA, PROSTOR, DENAR
Prerez skozi dogajar\)e z etnografskim muzejem in v njem je na tem mestu skop,
omejen na bistvene premike, ponekod le na začetna in sedanja stanja, saj so razvoj muzeja
od ustanovitve do danes v zadnjih nekaj letih osvetlila poglobljena besedila (zlasti Rogelj-
Škafar, 1993, 1995), ki bi jih bilo nesmiselno v celoti obnavljati.
Ustanova Slovenski etnografski muzej je dobila svoje današnje ime v šestdesetih
letih. Ustanovitveno ime Kraljevi etnografski muzej iz leta 1923 je po 2. svetovrü vojni
zamenjalo ime Etnografski muzej, temu pa so leta 1964 (na pobudo tedanjega ravnatelja
Borisa Kuharja) dodaU še pridevnik slovei^ki, z namenom, "da bi bilo že iz imena razvidno,
da gre za osrednjo slovensko etnološko muzejsko ustanovo" (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993). To deset-
letja uveljavljeno ime nacionalne muzejske ir\štitucije smo zaradi njegove tradicije ohranili.
Zaradi tradicije in zaradi različnih zgodovinskih, prostorskih in teoretičnih pojmovanj
etnografskega smo ohranili tudi ta temeljni vsebinski pridevnik v imenu muzeja, čeprav bi ga
lahko na osnovi opravljenega dela, delovnih ambicij in vsebine zbirk nadomestili s širšim
vsebinskim pridevnikom, etnološki muzej, ah pa ga označili celo kot antropološki muzej.
Zametek etnografskega muzeja so pomerüle "etnografske" in/oziroma "narodo-
pisne zbirke" Kranjskega deželnega muzeja v Ljubljani, ustanovljenega leta 1821. Začetek
etnografskega muzeja kot ustanove pa je bil sad prizadevanj enega človeka, Nika
Županiča, prvega akademsko izobraženega slovenskega etnologa in antropologa
(svetovljana in diplomata), kateremu je leta 1923 uspelo dobiti privoljenje Ministrstva za
prosveto Kraljevine Jugoslavije za ustanovitev Kraljevega etnografskega muzeja v
Ljubljani. V naslednjem letu je ta dokaj netipična "institucija enega", zamudnica v toku
sočasnega dogajanja z večino in v večini evropskih etnografskih muzejev, dobila prvega
zaposlenega, asistenta, imietinostnega zgodovinarja Stanka Vumika. Človek, ki je postal
glavni in poleg Županiča edini strokovni in znanstveni delavec v muzeju, je leta 1926 (v
kroniki z naslovom Kr. etnografski muzej v Ljubljani, njega zgodovina, delo, načrti in potrebe,
objavljeni v prvem letniku muzejske znanstvene revije Etnolog) zapisal nekaj besed o prostoru
etnografskega muzeja, ki so tako značilne in povedne za skoraj vsa obdobja ustanove,
da so - sicer s kasnejšimi razHčicami in njihovimi morda malce drugačnimi odtenki -
ostajale sodobne skozi vseh muzejevih sedemdeset let: "...prostor za (stalno) razstavo.
Glede tega prostora, ki je zaenkrat ena izmed najnujnejših potreb etnografskega muzeja, so
se storili v zadnjih treh letih mnogi koraki pri pokrajinski in centralni vladi. Narodni muzej
(glavni naslednik Kranjskega deželnega muzeja) je odločno premajhen postal i sam za svoje
ambicije, v njega poslopju se etnografski muzej ne more dovoljno razširiti.... Točka budgetne
dotacije, iz katere bi bilo nujno treba zidati za etnografski muzej v Ljubljani novo, posebno
stavbo, pa je zaenkrat še mrtva točka, preko katere ni mogoče dalje, dokler vlada ne bo našla poti,
da z višjo dotacijo bolje podpre delo etnografskega muzeja."
Niti tri razstavne dvorane, pridobljene v stavbi Narodnega muzeja leta 1947, niti
odpiranje razpršenih dislociranih muzejskih razstavnih prostorov v šestdesetih letih in
niti pridobitev novih delovnih prostorov na podstrešju stavbe Narodnega muzeja v
osemdesetih letih niso pomenili zadostnih in dokončnejših prostorskih rešitev za
etnografski muzej. V iskanju slednjih so se zdaj s te, zdaj z one strani pojavljale vse
mogoče zamisli; tja do devetdesetih let, do politično ugodnega časa pred, med in po
osamosvojitvi države Slovenije, ko so se prizadevanja ustanove za lastilo stavbo zgostila.
Simbolno jih označuje Mladika, mesti:ü dekliški licej in potem vojaška bobica, stavba
(funkcionalistična arhitektura Maksa Fabianija), kije po odhodu vojaščine nekdanje Jugoslavije
18
Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej
ostala prazna in se je zdela tako zelo ustrezna za etnografski muzej. Kljub nelagodju
zaradi morebitne politične manipulacije, ki v etnološkem zgodovinskem spominu ni
neznan pojav, smo etnologi v etnografskem muzeju v tem obdobju, nabitem s čustvi in
s politiko, pri svojih pisnih in ustnih nastopih zavestno uporabljali hidi politične odtenke;
čeprav smo bili sami prepričani, da si za lastno, dovolj prostorno muzejsko hišo
prizadevamo z vso legitimnostjo suverene znanstvene discipline in nacionalne kulturne
institucije (Smerdel, 1995). In kaže, da je šele spolitizirano vrenje okrog Mladike, politična
pozornost zaradi izjemne naklonjenosti javnosti in dela političnega prostora na eni strani
ter odklonilnega odnosa nasprotnega dela tega prostora na drugi strani Slovenski
etnografski muzej končno uzavestilo kot kulturno ustanovo nacionalnega pomena, ki za
svoje poslanstvo, za uresničevanje temeljnih družbenih vlog po "abecedi muzejske dejav-
nosti" (Duclos, 1996) nedvomno potrebuje ustrezen prostor.
Tudi v ta namen je vlada Republike Slovenije sklenila odpreti kulturi južni del
kompleksa nekdanje vojašnice na Metelkovi. V juliju leta 1994 ga je dodelila Ministrstvu
za kulturo: za Slovenski etnografski muzej in za druge potrebe v kulturi. S pogodbo, ki
jo je 29. marca 1995 podpisal tedanji ravnatelj muzeja Ivan Sedej, je ministrstvo dalo
etnografskemu muzeju v rabo dve izmed šestih stavb na jugu Metelkove (s površinama
3500 in 1900m^), za razstavno in skoraj vso drugo muzejsko dejavnost, ter nam kmalu za
tem v okviru istega stavbnega sestava zagotovilo še površino za muzejski depo (2000m^).
V sodelovanju med ljubljansko Mestno občino in Ministrstvom za kulturo je bil potem v
juliju 1995 razpisan javni arhitektumo-urbanistični natečaj za južni del kompleksa
nekdanje vojašnice 4. julij na Metelkovi in anketni urbanistični natečaj za njegov severni
del; natečaj za urbanistično ureditev, stavbno prenovo in morebitno dozidavo objektov
tako imenovane Belgijske kasarne iz časa Avstro-Ogrske, historičnih stavb s konca 19.
stoletja, ki naj bi elegantno sprejele prerazne muzejske in druge vsebine in ki naj bi
sestavljale nov, živahen ljubljanski kulturni center, mikaven v svoji multikultumosti (z
ustanovami: Slovenski etnografski muzej. Narodni muzej. Modema galerija; z Akademijo za
gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, z neinstitucionakio kulturno ustvarjalnostjo...).
S temi dejanji verjetno lahko sklenemo tako negativno zgodbo o prostoru
etnografskega muzeja, ki jo je začel Vurrük v prvih letih obstoja ustanove z besedami o
prostoru za razstavo kot o "eni izmed najnujnejših potreb etnografskega muzeja", kot
negativno zgodbo o denarju, o "mrtvi točki budgetne dotacije glede gradnje novega
muzeja" (Vumik, 1926/27). Med naložbami v kulturi je od leta 1995 odprta proračunska
postavka "Metelkova - Slovenski etnografski muzej", ki je v letu 1996 muzeju omogočila
začetek notranje prenove prve, manjše, gradbeno manj zahtevne stavbe, izvzete iz natečaja,
vendar obravnavane kot del celote. Cena prenove te stavbe: gradbenih, obrtniških in
inštalacijskih del je bila brez opreme 241.000.000 tolarjev (2.680.000 DEM). Glede na oceno
naložbe za dokončanje večjega, gradbeno zahtevnejšega objekta etnografskega muzeja
in pripadajočih podzemnih depojsküi prostorov, ki znaša skoraj 1.183.000.000 tolarjev
(13.252.000 DEM), in glede na vse tisto, kar naj bi se še udejanilo v stavbnem sestavu na
Metelkovi, v tem novem ljubljanskem kulturnem središču, ki nedvomno pomeni izziv,
je upati, da bodo političnim in kulturnim odločitvam, ki so botrovale začetku del na
Metelkovi, sledile takšne odločitve, ki bodo vztrajno vodile k njihovemu uspešnemu in
korektnemu koncu.
Ko smo v ustanovi sestavljali program celostne zasnove etnografskega muzeja na
Metelkovi, osnovo za arhitektumo-urbanistični natečaj, smo imeli v mislih vizijo muzeja.
19_
Inja Smerdel
kakršnega v muzejskih krogih zadnje čase označuje sicer modna, a pomensko bogata in
zahtevna sintagma "prijazen muzej". Imeli smo svojo predstavo o sodobnem, mednarodno
primerljivem etnografskem muzeju, živahni kulturrü, znanstveni in pedagoški ustanovi,
ki bi morala svojim obiskovalcem nuditi ne le privlačne razstave, druge prireditve in
muzejske delavnice; ne le možnosti odkrivanja, učenja, uživanja, sodelovanja, ustvarjanja,
sanjarjenja in premišljanja, temveč tudi vse tisto, kar je potrebno za njihovo dobro telesno
počutje. NačrtovaU smo muzej, v katerem bi moralo biti v skladu z mednarodnimi
standardi poskrbljeno za muzeahje: za njihovo varnost, pogoje hranjenja in razstavljanja;
in snovaU smo ustanovo, ki bi svojemu osebju omogočala smiselno povezavo med
razUčnimi procesi muzejskega dela in jim nudila prijetne, vzpodbudne delovne prostore.
Tako smo domislili dehtev na tri med sabo povezane enote:
1. na razstavno palačo, največjo in najbolj reprezentančno hišo na jugu stavbnega
sestava, vso namenjeno javnostim (s prostori za stalno razstavo, za občasne razstave, muzejske
delavnice, muzejsko trgovino, muzejsko okrepčevalnico...);
2. na njej sosednjo, pogojno imenovano upravno hišo, manjšo stavbo, namenjeno
upravni, informacijski, raziskovalni, avdiovizualni, založniški, konservatorsko-restavra-
torski in drugim dejavnostim (z javno čitalnico, predavalnico, manjšim razstaviščem) in
3. na med obema hišama ležeč in z obema povezan podzemni muzejski depo. (Za
podobno delitev so se naprimer odločili načrtovalci novega Kanadskega muzeja civilizacije v
Hullu, odprtega leta 1989 (Hushion, 1992): ena stavba je namenjena upravi, konservaciji in depojem,
druga pa v celoti razstavam.)
Programsko zasnovo muzeja so udeleženci arhitektumo-urbanističnega natečaja
v glavnem upoštevali. Zaželeno shemo namembnosti bodočih prostorov razstavne palače
etnografskega muzeja in njihovo povezanost z depojem in z upravno hišo tako najbolj
povedno predstavlja podoba, načrti v marcu 1996 nagrajene natečajne rešitve z oznako
Forum, arhitektov Sama in Gorazda Grolegerja, Miroslava Kvasa in Maje Štefula.
Pridobljeni prostori, ta tako dolgo čakana osnova za normalen razvoj in delovanje
ustanove, so v etnografskem muzeju oživili zlasti etnološka in muzeografska razglabljanja
o stalni muzejski razstavi (o tem v naslednjih poglavjih). Z njimi pa se je pojavila tudi
možnost in potreba po načrtovanju nekaterih novih muzejskih služb, v urejerîih muzejskih
institucijah podobnega pomena in velikosti drugače povsem vsakdanjih, in novega
muzejskega osebja, kakršno je naprimer: receptor, prodajalec muzejskih vstopnic,
vzdrževalec objektov, muzejski fotograf, oseba za odnose z javnostmi ipd.
Etnografski muzej se je kot ustanova nedvomno razvijal tudi v preteklih sedem-
desetih letih; od "institucije enega" (Nika Županiča) leta 1923 in potem kmalu dveh
(Županiča in Vurnika) je bolj ali manj v skladu z rastjo zbirk, knjižničnega in
dokumentacijskega fonda ter s širjenjem raziskovalne in razstavne dejavnosti do leta
1995 zrasel v ustanovo s petindvajsetimi zaposlenimi:
- s petimi v upravi (direktorico, tajnico, računovodkinjo, blagajničarko, ekonomom, kurirko/
snažilko);
Namembnost bodočih prostorov razstavne palače SEM in njihova povezanost z depojem in z
upravno hišo. Natečajna rešitev arhitektov Sama in Gorazda Grolegerja, Miroslava Kvasa in
Maje Štefula. ¦ Functional arrangement of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum's future exhibition
halls and their connections with the depository and management building. Proposal submitted
by architects Samo and Gorazd Groleger, Miroslav Kvas and Maja Štefula. >
20
Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej
21
Inja Smerdel
22
Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej
23
Inja Smerdel
- S šestimi kustosi in raziskovalci (v kustodiatili za ljudsko umetnost, socialno kulturo in šege,
ruralno gospodarstvo, obrti in trgovino, oblačilno kulturo in tekstilno opremo, stavbarstvo in
notranjo opremo);
- s štirimi v informacijsko-dokumentacijski službi (tremi kustodinjami dokumentalistkami,
račimalničarjem);
- s kustodinjo bibliotekarko v muzejski knjižnici;
- s kustodinjo pedagoginjo v muzejski pedagoško-andragoški službi;
- s štirimi v muzejskih konservatorsko-restavratorskih delavnicah (vodjem delavnic,
restavratorji za les, kovino in tekstu) in
- s tremi v dislocirani muzejski enoti v gradu Goričane (kustosom za zunajevropske kulture,
kurirko/snažilko, hišrukom).
Za nadaljnji razvoj ustanove je bil spomladi leta 1995 sestavljen kratkoročni in
dolgoročni koncept strukture muzejskega osebja, v skladu z opredeljeno dejavnostjo
muzeja (nekaj temeljnih nalog skrajšano povzemam po novem Sklepu o ustanovitvi...: - zbira,
konservira in restavrira, ureja, dokumentira, hrani in znanstveno raziskuje: predmetne, pisne,
tiskane, slikovne in zvočne vire za etnološko proučevanje načinov življenja in kultur v Sloverüji in
zamejstvu ter v okviru danih možnosti tudi drugod; -pripravlja razstave in druge oblike izsledkov
muzejskega dela...; - izdaja strokovne, znanstvene in druge publikacije...; - sodeluje z vzgojno-
izobraževalnimi organizacijami, skrbi za poptilarizacijo svoje dejavnosti...; - vodi osrednjo etnološko
knjižnico...; - izvaja in organizira etnološko znanstveno raziskovalno dejavnost na Slovenskem in
drugod...) in s predvideno ureditvijo prostorskih razmer. V osnutku je z vsemi ustreznimi
utemeljitvami predvideno odpiranje naslednjih novih muzejskih služb (do leta 2000),
oziroma širjenje obstoječih, in naslednje dodatno osebje:
- v upravi pomočnik direktorja;
- v kustodiatih dva dodatna kustosa, za zunajevropske zbirke in za (bodoče) zbirke
slovenskih izseljencev, Slovencev v zamejstvu in narodnih manjšin v Sloveniji; (zaželena
pa bi bila še kustosa za zbirko glasbil in za množično kulturo);
- v muzejski knjižnici dodaten bibliotekar;
- v konservatorsko-restavratorskih delavnicah dodaten restavrator za les in restavrator
za tekstu;
- v novi službi za avdiovizualno dokumentacijo vodja avdiovizualnega laboratorija,
muzejski fotograf in risar;
- v novi službi za odnose z javnostmi ustrezna oseba;
- v novih servisnih službah vzdrževalec stavb, dva receptorja, dve snažilki (oziroma
snažuka in garderoberka), prodajalec vstopnic in šest paznikov.
- v muzejski okrepčevalnici najenmik okrepčevalnice;
- v muzejski trgovini najenmik trgovine;
- v muzejskih delavnicah mojstri: lončar, rezbar/strugar, tkalec, uporabniki posameznih delavnic.
Ta kratkoročni in dolgoročni koncept strukture muzejskega osebja je bil osnova za
shemo namembnosti prostorov v prvi, pogojno imenovani upravni hiši etiiografskega
muzeja (in delno v drugi, razstavni palači). Prva stavba Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja
na Metelkovi se prenavlja v skladu s sprejeto shemo in bo spomladi leta 1997 vseljena.
Namembnost prostorov v upravni hiši SEM ¦ Function of the rooms
in Üie Slovene Ethnographic Museum's management building. ^
24
Projekt imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzei
25
Inja Smerdel
POGLED NA ZBIRKE, POMEN PREDMETOV IN NEKATERE OPREDELITVE
MUZEJA TER STALNE RAZSTAVE
Slovenski etnografski muzej je bil kot nacionalna ustanova vsa leta svojega obstoja
precej protisloven muzej; še posebej v prhnerjavi z večino drugih nacionalnih in celo
pokrajinskih muzejev, ki so bili prepoznavni tako s svojimi stavbami kot s stahrimi
razstavami (pri čemer je ironija, da je prav Etnografski muzej s terenskimi raziskovanji v petdesetih
letih poskrbel za prve predmete v etnografskih zbirkah nekaterih pokrajinskih muzejev).
Protislovnost Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja se kaže v naslednjem:
Po eni strani gre za muzej z nacionalno in evropsko pomembnimi zbirkami,
pričevalnkni zlasti o tradicijski kulturi na Slovenskem in o vsakdanjem življenju zlasti
kmečkega prebivalstva; za zbirke, med katerimi je potrebno omeniti vsaj: orna orodja,
"najpomembnejšo zadevno zbirko v jugovzhodni Evropi" (po sodbi prof .dr. Hansa Korena; Smerdel,
1983); edinstveno, vseslovensko in najštevibiejšo zbirko noš, vezenin in čipk (po vpisih v
inventame knjige je leta 1983 obsegala 8572 kosov; Makarovič, M., 1983; ob pregledu leta 1995 je
štela 10071 kosov); zbhko ljudske imietnosti, "daleč največjo in najbolj reprezentativno te
vrste" in "edino vseslovensko zbirko te vrste" (Makarovič, G., 1983); zbirke bloških smuči,
polšjih pasti, mask, skrinj... Gre tudi za muzej z nekaterimi podobno pomembnimi
zimajevropskimi zbirkami, pričevalnimi o posameznih kulturnih sestavinah nekaterih
"ljudstev sveta" in o slovenskem odnosu do slednjih, o "srečevanjih z drugačnostjo"; za
zbirke, med katerimi kaže omeniti vsaj (zvečine imenovane po darovalcih): Baragovo zbirko
predmetov severnoameriških indijanskih plemen Očipva in Otava; Knobleharjevo zbhko
predmetov vzhodnosudanskega plemena Bari; Skuškovo kitajsko zbirko, "eno največjih"
po obsegu; "izredno obsežno, izvirno in načrtno zbrano" Beblerjevo indonezijsko zbirko
(Štrukelj, 1983) in zbirko Paula Schebeste (darovalec je bü dr. Lambert Ehrlich), etnologa,
znanega preučevalca Pigmejcev.
Po drugi strani pa gre za nacionahü mtizej, ki do zadnjega časa, kljub nacionalnemu
in širšemu pomenu svojih zbirk, brez lastne hiše (razen prostorov dislocirane enote za
zunajevropske kulture v gradu Goričane), brez primernega in dovolj velikega stahiega
razstavnega prostora sploh rü ustrezal polni vsebini besede muzej.
"Zbirka ni muzej. Muzej postane šele takrat, ko se oblikuje kot živ del kulture, ki ji
pripada," je naprimer izrekel Michel Van-Praët (EMYA, 1996), eden izmed vodilnih sodobnih
evropskih muzeologov, in pri tem mislil na razstavljene zbirke. V primeru Slovenskega
etnografskega muzeja, v katerem gre za povečini zaprte, deponirane zbirke, ki si jih
lahko muzejski obiskovalci ogledajo v obliki različnih interpretacij zgolj na občasnih
razstavah, bi bila njegova sodba enaka. Presenetljivo bi ne bilo niti mnenje, da je tak
muzej "prostor zaplenjene dediščine", saj ne more izpolnjevati ene izmed svojih temeljnih
družbenih vlog, "vračanja" (Duclos, 1996). V "muzejih o ljudeh", kakršen je nedvomno
tudi Slovenski etnografski muzej, "človek vrača človeku, kar mu je vzel", je tako poetično in
obvezujoče dejal Georges Henri Riviere (Duclos, 1996).
Slovenci smo s svojim nacionalnim etnografskim muzejem veliki evropski
zamudniki; toda le glede stavbe - prostora - in rükakor glede zbirk.
Vzpodbuda za nastanek večih osrednjih evropskih etiiografskih muzejev so bile
svetovne razstave v drugi polovici 19. stoletja. Pariška svetovna razstava leta 1867 je
naprimer predvidela poseben oddelek, namenjen "ljudskim nošam iz razhčnih pokrajin"
26
_Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej_
27
v Franciji in iz drugih dežel; še posebej opažem sta bili tedaj predstavitvi Norveške in
Švedske. Stockholmski Nordiska Museet je bU ustanovljen leta 1873; v pariškem Trocadéru,
odprtem leta 1884 (kot paleoantropološkem in zlasti zunajevropskem muzeju), kasnejšem
Musée de 1'homme, pa so na osnovi takih in drugačnih vzpodbud leta 1888 uredili
"francosko dvorano" (Duclos, 1996), zametek kasnejšega Musée des arts et traditions
populaires. Podobno vzpodbujeni z dunajsko svetovno razstavo leta 1873 so na Dunaju
leta 1895 ustanoviH Österreichisches Museum für Volkskunde, ki je ob koncu 1. svetovne
vojne zamenjal začasrie prostore Dunajske borze z današnjo hišo, vrtiio palačo Schönbom
(Beitl, Tschofen, 1994). Če bi v Ljubljani ob koncu 19. stoletja prisluhnili "naukom" Matije
Murka, ki je leta 1895 obiskal veliko Narodopisno razstavo Ceškoslovansko v Pragi, leto
za tem o njej poročal, objavil znamenite Nauke za Slovence in se zavzemal za ustanovitev
slovenskega narodopisnega muzeja (Keršič, 1993), bi ne zamujali prav dosti za tedanjim
porajanjem evropskih etiiografskih muzejev. A Murko je bil žal preslišan. Tako smo
Slovenci šele leta 1923 (na osnovi čisto drugačnih vzpodbud) dobili vsaj ustanovo Kraljevi
eh:\ografski muzej. Stavbo je institucija dobila dvainsedemdeset let za tem.
Vse drugače je bilo z zbirkami.
Leta 1821 je bila sprejeta odločitev o ustanovitvi Kranjskega deželnega muzeja v
Ljubljani (predhodnika tudi Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja). Se pred oblikovanjem
muzejskih zbirk petih vsebinskih področij: zgodovine, statistike, prirodoslovja, tehnologije
in fizike so odborniki načrtovali poseben etnografski oddelek (v okviru vsebinskega področja
zgodovina) po vzoru graškega Joaimeuma, ki naj bi obsegal opise in slike narodnih noš in
stavb, ljudske pripovedke, pravljice, ženitovanjske šege, narodne pesmi in napeve (Rogelj-
Škafar, 1993,1995). Sodobno romantično usmeritev etnografskega oddelka pa je prehitel
odmev razsvetljenstva (z na fiziokratskih načelih temelječem zanimanju za gospodarsko,
agrikultumo), v obliki predmetov, ki veljajo za najstarejše pridobitve v zbirkah današnjega
Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja: voza za prevažanje žita in sladkorja med Ljubljano
in Trstom, pluga in brane, s Plariine pri Rakeku, iz leta 1833 (Golob, 1996/97); majhnih
modelov "na Krainskim navadniga kmetouškiga orodia", tudi s Planine pri Rakeku, iz
leta 1835 (Smerdel, 1994) in modela dvojnega pluga iz leta 1836 (Deschmann, 1888). Prve
noše, "figurinice" z nošami iz Bele krajine, iz ČmonJja, Vinice in Bojancev, so zabeležene
šele leta 1839 (Rogelj-Škafar, 1995). Prva, najstarejša zbirka današnjega Slovenskega
etnografskega muzeja pa je nedvomno zbirka "etnografskih predmetov" iz Severne
Amerike, indijanskih plemen Očipva in Otava, ki jo je Kranjskemu deželnemu muzeju
leta 1836 daroval misijonar škof Friderik Baraga. Zanjo je bil naprošen. Predsednik
"muzejskega kuratorija" naravoslovec Hohenwart je nagovoril Baragovo sestro AmaUjo,
da je pisala bratu misijonarju za etnografske predmete "divjakov" (Golob, 1996).
Hohenwartovo zanimanje za indijanske predmete je bilo tako v duhu evropskih
naravoslovnih "kabinetov čudes", katerih pridih je na začetku zaznamoval hidi nastajajoče
antropološke muzeje (ti so bili pod imeni etnološki ali folklorni muzeji sredi 19. stoletja omejeni
na zunajevropske kulture; Riviere, 1989).
Med zametkom zbirk etnografskega muzeja in današnjim dnem je obdobje sto
enainšestdesetih let. V tem času so zunajevropske zbirke do leta 1953, ko je njihovo
število ugotavljal Boris Orel narasle na 1242 predmetov (kar naj bi ne bilo povsem stvarno,
saj naj bi nekateri že "prevzeti" in inventarizirani predmeti še naprej ostajali v Narodnem muzeju;
Orel, 1954) in potem do leta 1983, ko je o njih pisala Pavla Štinakelj, na "več kakor 9500
predmetov".
Inja Snnerdel
Zbirke so urejer\e po celinah in po darovalcih oziroma prodajalcih, med katerinü
so: raziskovalci, svetovni popotniki, misijonarji, pomorščaki, trgovci, diplomati... Iz leta
1843 je naprimer seznam egipčanskih predmetov, ki jih je muzeju daroval kor\zul Laurin;
leta 1850 je misijonar Ignacij Knoblehar poslal v Ljubljano zbirko predmetov
vzhodnosudanskega plemena Bari; Codellijeva zbirka iz Toga, Nigerije in Kamerima je
iz let 1912-1914; zbirka predmetov, "ki jih je med Pigmejci v Centralru Afriki nabral Paul
Schebesta, znani etnolog in raziskovalec Pigmejcev", je bila vpisana v inventamo knjigo
Etnografskega muzeja leta 1941; iz let 1912,1913 je naprimer "izredno kvalitetna" kitajska
zbirka misijonarja Petra Turka; leta 1963 je muzej prevzel (od Narodnega muzeja)
reprezentančno zbirko Japonke Tsuneko Kondo-Kavase, poročene Skušek; iz 1964 leta je
indonezijska zbirka Vere in Aleša Beblerja in leta 1978 je muzej dobil v dar mehiško
zbhko Vere in Ignaca Goloba (Orel, 1954, Štrukelj, 1983).
Pomembnejša od naštevanja nekaterih upoštevanja vrednih aU najbolj obsežnih
zbirk in njihovih darovalcev aH prodajalcev (zadnja je bila leta 1990 pridobljena afriška zbirka
336 predmetov, ki jo je muzeju prodal Anton Petkovšek) je nedvomno pričevalnost zbranih
zunajevropskih predmetov. Pozorno branje pregleda zadevnih zbirk, ki ga je ob
šestdesetletnici Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja napisala Pavla Štrukelj (1983), omogoča
spoznanje, da je v njih največ: lovskega in drugega orožja, nakita in drugih oblačilnih
dodatkov (pip, torb, glavnikov...), ženskih in moških oblačil ter obuval, mask in glasbil;
predmetov, ki so zbiralce pritegovali zlasti s svojo nenavadnostjo, drugačnostjo,
eksotičnostjo.
Ti predmeti so nedvomno zgovorne priče o nekaterih zunajevropskih kulturah in
o posameznih segmentih tanucajšnjega vsakdanjega življenja. Vidik, na osnovi katerega
so bih zbrani: njihova nenavadnost, eksotičnost, pa je poveden zlasti o odnosu zbiralcev
do teh kultur. Ob tem "Muzej neevropskih kultur ni in nima namena biti zbirka eksotičnih
pTeostemkov,...temveč namerava čimbolj kompleksno predstaviti neevropske kulture, s katerimi
smo Slovenci prihajaU, še prihajamo ali bomo prihajah v stike" (Čeplak, 1991). Navedena
opredehtev svojčas načrtovanega ločenega "Muzeja neevropskih kultur" (namesto enote
Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja v gradu Goričane) in njegove stalne razstave, zapisana
leta 1991, je bila tako glede na vsebino zbirk dokaj nestvarna in nedorečena.
V istih sto enainšestdesetih letih so se slovenske zbirke oblikovale malce drugače.
Namesto zbiranja predmetov "divjakov", iskanja nenavadnosti in eksotičnosti je šlo tu
sprva za zbiranje "narodnega blaga", "narodovih dragotin", "izdelkov duha in roke, ki
so nastali v narodu samem" (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993, Smerdel, 1983). Po pokrajinskem izvoru
so bile zbirke večinoma iz nekdanje dežele Kranjske oziroma še ožje, iz Gorenjske in
Bele krajine, tematsko pa zlasti tekstilije in ljudska timetnost (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993).
Bolj ali manj enaki kriteriji so prevladovati tudi v obdobju leta 1923 ustanovljenega
Kraljevega etnografskega muzeja, pri dopolnjevanju zbirateljske dediščine nekdanjega
Kranjskega dežebiega muzeja Rudolfinum. (Od njegovega glavnega naslednika Narodnega
muzeja je bilo prevzetih 3502 predmetov etnografske zbirke.) Za etnografski mxizej so bih
zanimivi čim starejši predmeti, ki naj bi skupaj z vsemi posebnostmi in značilnostmi
dokazovati "starost malega naroda". Pridobljene muzealije povečini niso bUe starejše od
dveh stoletij; med pokrajinanü, od koder so bile prinesene v muzej, sta še vedno
prevladovali Gorenjska in Bela krajina in po tematiki še posebej tekstil in ljudska umetnost.
Bistven kriterij za izbor je bü tipološki, kmečko pa so pojmovati kot konstanto brez
upoštevanja socialnega razlikovanja (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993).
28
Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej
Do vsebinskega premika pri zbiranju je prišlo šele v prvih dveh desetletjih po 2.
svetovni vojni. Ambicija tedanjega ravnatelja Borisa Orla, da naj bi muzej predstavljal
popolno podobo "ljudskega življenja na našem podeželju", in njegova opredelitev
etaologije kot vede, ki zbira in preučuje "raznovrstno gradivo iz slovenskega ljudskega
življenja" oziroma kot znanosti "o kulturnih tvorbah slovenskega ljudstva in o zakonih
njihovega razvoja" (Orel, 1948), sta bili vodili monumentalnega zbirateljskega dela tako
imenovanih Orlovih terenskih ekip. (Do leta 1962 se jih je v razUčnih slovenskih pokrajinah
zvrstilo osemnajst.) Posledica njihovega dela: raziskovanja, zbiranja in dokumentiranja
kulturnih sestavin v okviru uveljavljene deUtve na materialno, socialno in duhovno
kulturo je bila naposled tematska in krajevna raznolikost zbirk. V njih so se v večjem
številu pojavili: orna orodja, drugo poljedelsko orodje, naprave in stroji za čiščenje in
predelavo pridelkov, orodja za lov in ribolov, vprega, prometna sredstva, pohištvo,
gospodinjski predmeti in naprave, orodja domačih obrtnikov, izdelki domačih obrti...
Predmeti so izvirali iz ljubljanske okolice. Dolenjske, Primorske, Notranjske, Štajerske in
Koroške (poleg Gorenjske in Bele krajine).
V naslednjih desetletjih so postale zbirke še bolj raznolike - tako tematsko in
krajevno kot socialno; tudi zaradi večjega števila muzejskih kustosov. Njihovo
raziskovalno, zbirateljsko in živahno razstavno delo je bilo organizirano bolj ali manj v
skladu z etnološko sistematiko, po kustodiatih za ljudsko gospodarstvo (promet in hrano),
obrti in trgovino, naselja, stavbarstvo in notranjo opremo, nošo in druge tekstilije, družbeno
kulturo (šege) in ljudsko umetaost. Še posebej pomemben vpliv je imelo uveljavljanje
sodobnih teoretičruh pogledov; odmik od študija razvoja kulturnih sestavin k obravnavi
njihovih nosilcev oziroma njihovemu odnosu do kulturnih sestavin (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993).
V središče zanimanja je bil (tudi v muzeju) postavljen "človek kot nosilec kulture, vpeljan
s konceptom način življenja kot razmerjem med človekom in njegovim kulturnim in
naravnim okoljem, kakor se kaže v vsakdanjih rutinah" (Slavec Gradišnik, 1995). Etaologija
je bila opredeljena kot "specializirana disciplina historiografskega značaja, ki se posveča
raziskovanju vsakdanjih, običajnih, tipičnih kulturnih oblik in vsebine vsakdanjega
življenja tistih družberiih slojev in skupin, ki dajejo neki etnični ali nacionalni enoti njen
specifičen značaj" (Kremenšek, 1960/61).
V zbirkah je mogoče videti odsev te opredehtve zlasti v naslednjem: v manjšem
številu so se pojavih predmeti, pričevalni o vsakdanjiku pripadnikov posameznih
poklicnih skupin (naprimer gozdnih in žagarskih delavcev) in drugih družbenih slojev
(naprimer meščanov). Kljub deklarativni širitvi pa so glavnina muzejskega thesaurusa
ostajale zbirke virov kmečke kulture, priče o vsakdanjem življenju kmečkega prebivalstva,
o slovenskem človeku arhaične, tradicionalne družbe. (Vse slovenske zbirke etnografskega
muzeja štejejo danes več kot 30000 predmetov; 22904 je inventariziranih, ostalim je mogoče slediti
po dohodnih knjigah.)
Predmeti v teh zbirkah, nekdanji "dokazi ljudske ustvarjabiosti" in "inventar
narodnega zaklada", so zvečine še vedno isti. Drugačen pa je današnji pogled nanje.
Postali so zlasti večpomenski nosilci informacij: materialne priče o vsakdanjiku kmečkega
prebivalstva in zgodbonosci o ustvarjalnosti, inventivnosti, znanjih, modrostih, idealih
lepote, sožitju z naravo...
Včasih jih je vse zaobjelo sicer sporno, a še vedno uveljavljeno ime ljudska kultura.
Slovenska etimološka veda je za ljudsko kulhiro do šestdesetih let štela "kmečko kulhu'o
iz predindush-ijske dobe in poznejše prežitke te kulhire" (po Baševi opredelitvi; Kremenšek,
29
Inja Smerdel
1983), kar naj bi bila sprejemljiva oznaka. Kasneje je bil pojem ljudska kultura povezan s
"kulturo podložniškega razreda obdobja fevdalizma" (Kremenšek, 1983), kar naj bi njeno
opredelitev še bolj natančno zgodovinsko in sociabio zamejilo. Po nekaterih mlajših
premišljanjih (Muršič, 1995) pa naj bi ne bilo mogoče ljudske kulture "locirati niti v dejanski
čas ruti v družbeni prostor - tudi v predindustrijsko dobo ne". Za eb:iološko vedo naj bi
bila "transcendentalna" kategorija.
Termin "ljudska" je nedvomno teoretsko sporen, ne dovolj določen; po drugi strani
pa so reči, muzejski predmeti, ki jih je zaobjemal pojem ljudska kultura prav neverjetno
stvarne: izdelalo ali uporabljalo jih je zlasti kmečko prebivalstvo; večinoma gre za
predmete, povedne o ročnem delu in o izročenem znanju (o pred-strojnih delovnih opravilih
in predindustrijskih delovruh načinih), izvirajoče največ iz 19., manj iz 18. (ter v posameznih
primerih iz stoletij pred tem) in iz 20. stoletja, pogosto pričevalne o kultuntih sestavinah
"dolgega trajanja". Pomensko ustreznejša se zato zdi sintagma tradicijska kultura. Pojem
"tradicija" sporoča preteklo, historično, prenašanje iz roda v rod, "dolgo trajanje"; in v
preteklosti, do prvih desetletij 20. stoletja, je büo večinsko prebivalstvo na Slovenskem
kmečko (v vsej svoji razslojenosti). Sintagma tradicijska kultura tako nosi v sebi historično
in socialno.
Bolj ah manj z zbirkami v mislih so skozi zgodovino muzeja nastajale različne
opredehtve muzeja in stalne razstave ter njene redke uresničitve. Kot prvo tako udejanjenje
je tieba omeniti razstavitev zbirk "narodopisnega " oddelka Kranjskega dežekiega muzeja
Rudolfinum leta 1906, v osmih omarah (vitrinah) in z naslednjo opredelitvijo muzejskega
kustosa Walterja Šntida: "..da se jasno vidi slika lokalne kulture Kranjske dežele v zaokroženih
skupinah" (Rogelj-Škafar, 1995).
Kustos Kraljevega eti:iografskega muzeja Stanko Vvunik je načrtoval stalno razstavo
kot odraz cilja "ponazoriti slovenski in jugoslovanski živelj v etnografskem, antropološkem in
ljudskoumetnostnem pogledu". Postavitev je predvidel v zamišljenih bodočih prostorih po
jasrü shemi: šest dvoran za kmečko arhitekturo s tipičnimi interieri sob, kamer in kuhinj;
dve dvorani za razstavo pohištva in lesene, železne keramične ter tekstilne kmečke obrti;
dve dvorani za poljedelsko in obrtno orodje; tri dvorane za razstavo noš in vezenin; ena
dvorana za plastiko in slikarstvo; ena dvorana za ljudsko glasbo; ena dvorana za razstavo
šeg in dve dvorani za predmete eksotičnih narodov (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993).
Leta 1947 so Etnografskemu muzeju v stavbi Narodnega muzeja dodeliti tri
razstavne dvorane in del hodnika v prittičju. Ravnatelj Boris Orel si je zamislilpredstaviteo
celotne slovenske ljudske kulture z zgodovinsko razvojnih vidikov, kar pa v omenjenih breh
dvoranah še rti bilo mogoče. Šlo je za ekskluziven izbor komaj desetine vseh muzejskih
predmetov. Prvo dvorano so namenili predstavitvi slovenske kmečke hiše, njenega
gospodarstva in gospodinjstva ter obrti; drugo dvorano so napolnile slovenske ljudske
noše in tretjo predmeti slovenske ljudske umetnosti in šeg (Rogelj-Škafar, 1995).
Od polovice šestdesetih let Slovenski etnografski muzej ni imel več stalne razstave.
Začelo se je obdobje preraznih občasrtih razstav, ki naj bi bile vse "osnova za pripravo,
za postavitev stalne zbirke" (Kuhar, 1983). Ravnatelj Boris Kuhar jo je opredelil z naslednjimi
besedami (1983): "To naj bi bila razstava, ki bi predstavila po vseh sodobnih muzeoloških
pravihh in v skladu z razvojem etiiološke stroke, v svetu in doma, življenje Slovenca od
njegove naselitve do včeraj, ali celo do danes. Prostorsko naj bi prikaz zajel Slovence to in
onstran meje pa tudi naše izseljence in zdomce. Tematsko pa naj bi ta prikaz zajel sloje prebivalstva,
socialne, poklicne in druge skupine na podeželju in v mestih, ki so bili v posameznih zgodovinskih
30
Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej
obdobjih značilni za našo narodno skupnost." V opredeHtev, ki ni izhajala iz muzejske
stvamosh, iz zbirk, in ki je temeljila na dveh uveljavljenih definicijah etnologije: na tisti
Slavka Kremenška, navedem na prejšnjih sfa-aneh, in na oni Angelosa Basa, da je etimologija
"veda o načinu življenja ali, natančneje, o zgodovini načina življenja posameznih narodov"
(1968), je sam Kuhar podvomil v stavkih, ki so ji slediH: "Ker je na žalost v naši dosedanji
eti:\ološki literaturi velik manjko, ker nimamo temeljnih del, bo tu potrebno še veliko
raziskovalnega znanstvenega dela, pa tiidi sodelovanje ostalih etiioloških ustanov in
sorodnih stiok."
Opredelitev se je ohranila v spominu muzeja kot "način življenja od paleolita do
Tita" in še so ji sledih. Sledili so namreč zlasti obema navedenima metodološkima
obrazcema. Kustodinja Irena Keršič je naprimer zapisala (1983): "Temeljna naloga
Slovenskega etiiografskega muzeja ostaja postavitev stahie razstave Načina življenja
Slovencev v zgodovinskih obdobjih vse do danes."
Ta dolgo deklarirana kompleksnost: način življenja vseh časov, vseh slojev in
poklicnih skupin, ki jo zdaj tu zdaj tam sestavljamo s posameznim in ki je zaradi
mnogočesa neulovljiv, izmikljiv cilj, je bila v zadnjem času (Muršič, 1995) dokaj stvarno
označena kot "predimenzioniran modernistični dlj".
V Slovermskem etnografskem muzeju se po preudarku vračamo k svojemu jedru: k
zbirkam; k predmetu in tako vedno znova k človeku, o katerem nam reči, ki jih je nosil in ki
so ga obdajale, tohko povedo. K zbirkam pa se ne vračamo zato, da bi postavili stalno
razstavo, ki bi büa "muzej predmetov", temveč zato, da bi s predmeti ustvarili "muzej
idej" (po Van-Praëtu) bivanja, muzej o ljudeh za ljudi. Verjetno ni potrebno poudariti, da
nas tak pristop k stalni razstavi oddaljuje od starih konceptov postavitev "ljudske kulture
nekega naroda", a tudi od neulovljive kompleksnosti, ki jo je še mogoče zaznati v leta
1995 napisanem besedilu kustodinje Bojane Rogelj-Škafar: "Stahia razstava bo skušala s
svetom predmetov razkriti značilne dejavnosti, ki so obUkovale in vplivale na način
življenja, na procese in odnose med in znotraj značilnih slojev slovenskega naroda v razUčnih
obdobjih do danes." Zbirkam predmetov, pričevalnih o tradicijski kultmi, o vsakdanjem
življenju zlasti kmečkega prebivalstva na Slovenskem, ne moremo ubežati, saj so
posebnost Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja in pomenijo pomemben del ne le slovenske,
temveč evropske kulturne dediščine (kakršno v nekaterih deželah, še posebej v Franciji, označuje
sintagma "kmečka civilizacija"). Podobno ne moremo ubežati vidiku eksotičnosti oziroma
nenavadnosti, ki je tako povedno navzoč v zunajevropskih zbirkah. Zato bi bilo razumno,
da bi se končno znebiH frustracije kompleksruh definicij; vsaj kar se stalne razstave tiče.
Prenovljeni Slovenski etimografski muzej v stavbnem sestavu na Metelkovi namreč
ne bo omejen le na pripoved relativno stalne razstave. Tu so še neizčrpne tematske in
izrazne možnosti občasnih razstav: lastnih, gostujočih domačih in tujih; slovenskih,
evropskih, zunajevropskih. Tu je (poleg izpopolnjevanja obstoječih zbirk in dokumentacijskega
fonda) nuja obHkovanja nekaterih novih zbirk in vzporednih raziskav: naprimer zbirke
predmetnih prič o vsakdanjem življenju slovenskih izseljencev; dopolnjevanje zamejskega
gradiva; zbiranje predmetov, pričevalnih o življenju pripadnikov drugih etnij v Sloveniji
in osnovanje oziroma dopolnjevanje zbirk predmetov, povednih o sodobni množični
kulturi. (Slednja je za sodobnost - podobno kot tradicijska kultura za preteklost - kulturna podoba
vsakdanjega življenja premnogih, morda celo večine slovenskega prebivalstva.) Cilj je sodoben
evropski muzej kulturnih identitet, ki je z vso svojo vsebino del nacionalne kulturne identitete.
Poleg drugih osnovrmih družbertih vlog bodo njegova bistvena sporočila: ponosna,
31
Inja Smerdel
dostojanstvena ljubezen do lastne tradicijske kulture, do izročene dediščine; razkritje kulturne
raznoterosti, sožitje z drugačnostjo, strpnost do tujih narodov, tujih etnij in modrost življenja v
sobivanju z naravo. O prenovljenem Sloveriskem etnografskem muzeju,fcu/tumi, znanstveni
in pedagoški ustanovi, tako premišljam kot o celostnem etnološkem, antropološkem muzeju, ki
bo za svoje obiskovalce vez med preteklim in sedanjim, med tradicijsko in sodobno kulturo, med
naravo in civilizacijo, med svojo in tujimi kulturami; med človekom in med podobo, ki jo bomo
o njem umetno ustvarili - s predmeti, ki so resnični.
POT PROTI STALNI RAZSTAVI
S snovanjem stalne razstave smo v Slovenskem etnografskem muzeju začeli
spomladi leta 1995. Takrat prostori bodočega muzeja niso bili več nestvarni. Začelo se je
s pogovori o možnih pristopih k delu, naprimer o takojšnji ali poznejši pritegrhtvi
sodelavcev iz drugih etnoloških institucij, o zadolžitvi skupine ali posameznikov in
podobnem. Ob koncu pomladi smo na Ministrstvu za znanost in tehnologijo prijavih
triletni uporabni projekt s področja ohranjanja naravne in kulturne dediščine, z naslovom
Stalna razstava v Slovenskem etnografskem muzeju. Projekt poteka od januarja 1996. V
njegovem okvhu bo nastal zbh besedil, ki bodo imela na razstavi temeljni razlagabii,
povezovalni oziroma dopolrulni pomen (legend, besedil zloženk in vodnika po razstavi);
izvedeni bosta priprava muzeoloških vidikov razstavljanja (mnzeografije, mikroklime,
razsvetljave) in priprava pedagoško-andragoškega dela razstave.
V jesenskih mesecih leta 1995 se je potem izoblikovalo mnenje, da mora vsebinski
osnutek za stah\o razstavo nastati v muzeju, v krogu kustosov etiiologov, ki združujejo
muzeološki in etiiološki znanstven pristop in ki najbolje poznajo temeljno gradivo za
razstavo, zbirke muzealij. Izbrana zasnova naj bi bila šele za tem dana v presojo drugim,
vendar ne le etnologom, temveč še posebej širši javnosti, muzejskim obiskovalcem.
Glede na smiselno delitev dela v skupini muzejskih kustosov in zaradi misli, da
naj bodo prvi osnutki plod individualnega snovanja, so bih za izdelavo slednjih naprošeni
Gorazd Makarovič, Andrej Dular in Janja Žagar. Spomladi leta 1996 smo že prebirati
nastale zasnove za stakio razstavo ter jim ob rob zapisovati ati ustno izrekati morebitne
pripombe in sugestije.
Makarovič je predlagal orgartiziranje razstave v štiri sklope: 1. Prostor, čas in družba
- orientacijski okvir, 2. Viri in načini preživljanja (poljedelstvo, živinoreja, lov, nabiralništvo,
obrti...), 3. Potiošnja (hrana, obleka, stanovanje) in 4. Odnos do sveta (verovanja, šege, umetnosti,
znanja...). Prvi sklop bi bil uvodni, drugi trije pa bi bili utemeljeni "na pogledu 'od spodaj',
na vidikih in odnosih do stvarnosti, kot si jih obtikuje prebivalstvo, ki se mora preživeti,
trositi in se samouresrtičevati". Postavitev naj bi büa - kjer je le mogoče - historična in
razvojna, s poudarkom na obdobju od sredine 18. stoletja naprej. Razčlenjerti vzorci
posameznih podpoglavij osnovrtih sklopov so nakazovali izrazito znanstveno obtiko
stable razstave.
Dularjev osnutek je obsegal tri glavne sklope: 1. Generalije, 2. Življenjske zgodbe
in 3. Slovenci in svet. Prvi sklop, v katerem bi bOi predstavljerti osnovni podatki o Slovencih
kot narodu (naselitev, zgodovinski razvoj, jezik, demografsko relevantni podatki...), bi težil od
splošnega k posameznemu in se končal s primeri psiho-fizičnih značilnosti Slovencev, z
namišljenim posameznikom, ki bi uvedel sklop Življenjske zgodbe. Ta bi potekal na
ravrti dveh pripovedi: življenjskih šeg od rojstva do smrti, kjer bi bilo človekovo življenje
32
Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej
postavljeno v osebni časovni kontekst, in na ravni koledarskih, letaih šeg, kjer bi bilo
umeščeno v širši, splošni, družbeni časovni kontekst. Tretji sklop, Slovenci in svet, pa bi
težil od posameznega k splošnemu in bi prikazoval povezanost Slovencev z Evropo in
ostaüm svetom. Poudarek bi bil na prikazu poznavanja in odkrivanja tujih kultur in na
izseljenstvu Slovencev.
Tako Dularjev kot Makarovičev koncept sta predvidela enovito obliko stahie
razstave z notranjo zgradbo navedenih sklopov. Osnutek Janje Žagar pa je vseboval
delitev na dve temeljni razstavni obliki (od treh - po eni izmed možnih razvrstitev - pogosto
imenovanih pedagoška, kulturna in znanstvena, glede na to, ali so namenjene zlasti otrokom,
najširši javnosti ali strokovnjakom; Desvallées, 1976), na obhko tako imenovane kulturne
razstave, namenjene najširši javnosti, z naslovom Podobe neke kulture ah predmet o
ljudeh, in na obliko znanstvene razstave z naslovom Študijske zbirke ali predmet o sebi.
V okviru prve razstavne oblike je predvidela uvodni del, "orientacijski oris kultiire" -
(geografsko-historični in historično-družbeni) in za tem postavitev, ki "naj bi obiskovalcu
ponujala več možnih načinov sprejemanja posredovanih informacij", in sicer: kot
življenjska "zgodba o posamezniku in njegovih družbenih vlogah" (ki so se v skladu z njegovimi
življenjskimi dobami "širile" ali "krčile"); kot "širjenje" in "ciklično ponavljanje" (ki se odraža
na nivojih človeka, družbe, drugih razsežnosti, narave, dela) in kotogled povprečnega inventarja
predmetov (orodja, notranje opreme, oblačil), opravil in odnosov med ljudmi. (Razstavna zasnova
v celoti in izbran izsek iz scenarija bosta predstavljena posebej.) Ob tem je zapisala, da se zdi,
"da so - če izvzamemo geografsko specifične razmere in predmete, hkrati pa tudi glede
na sestavo zbirk SEM - najlaže opredmetene razmere v osrednji Sloveniji sredi 19. stoletja".
Razstava se tako začne okoli 1830 ali 1840, konča pa v prvih desetietjih 20. stoletja. V
okviru druge razstavne oblike si je Zagarjeva zamislila prikaz zbirk Slovenskega
etnografskega muzeja, večinoma v skladu z uveljavljeno etimološko sistematiko. Tu bi bil
poudarek na predmetu, zaradi njegove "oblike, izdelave in deloma zaradi uporabe", oziroma
tehnološkega vidika, in razviden bi bil "časovno-geografski kontekst razvoja predmeta".
O delitvi na vsaj dve temeljni razstavni obliki smo že dlje časa premišljali pod
vtisom tako imenovanega "ATP stila", tipa predstavitve, ki ga je zasnoval predvsem
Georges Henri Riviere in ga izpeljal v obliki Študijske in Kulturne galerije v pariškem
Musée des arts et braditions populaires (Desvallées, 1976). Čeprav smo si v času svojih
snovanj širili poglede s primerjalnim branjem nekaterih dostopnih vodrtikov po stalnih
razstavah etnografskih muzejev, z drugim branjem (naprimer kritik relativno zastarele
postavitve v ATP-ju) in z ogledi nekaterih novejših zadevnih evropskih razstav (naprimer
konceptualno izvime, vizualno pa ne dovolj sporočilne postavitve iz leta 1994 v dunajskem
Österreichisches Museum für Volkskunde in dokaj klasične postavitve iz začetka devetdesetih let
v budimpeštaimskem Néprajzi museumu), smo se vedno znova vračali k omenjenemu "ATP
stilu", vendar zlasti zaradi misli o ustieznosti delitve na dve oziroma na tri razstavne
oblike. (Riviere je namreč načrtoval tudi tretjo, Pedagoško galerijo, ki bi bila namenjena samo
otrokom; Desvallées, 1976.)
Kot temeljno zasnovo stahie razstave Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja smo
spomladi izbraH zamisel Janje Žagar. Pri nadaljnji orgartizaciji dela je Zagarjeva prevzela
dokončno izoblikovanje razstavne zgodbe sklopa Podobe neke kulture aH predmet o
ljudeh, prikaza tiadicijske kulture, "njerüh sprememb in novosti" skozi pripoved o
življenju namišljenega posameznika oziroma para. Andrej Dular je prevzel oblikovanje
scenarija študijske razstave zbirk in Gorazd Makarovič snovanje uvodne razstavne
pripovedi, "orientacijskega orisa kulture" oziroma "temeljnih okvirjev slovenskega
33
Inja Smerdel
etnosa". Študiju pedagoško-andragoških vidikov stalne razstave se je že pred tem
posvetua Sonja Kogej-Rus, Marjeta Mikuž pa je sredi leta prevzela izvedbo raziskave
potencialnih obiskovalcev Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja in njihovih pričakovanj
glede stalne razstave. V dialogu z zunanjim sodelavcem Borutom Rovšnikom,
muzeologom Mestnega muzeja Ljubljana, je bü sestavljen vprašalnik, s katerim bo januarja
1997 izvedeno poskusno arü<;etiranje. Po dokončni redakciji vprašabuka bo v februarju
steklo arücetiranje, ki bo zajelo okrog šeststo vzorčnih posameznikov.
Obiskovalce kot aktivne sopotrüke muzeja nameravamo (po opravljeiü pripravljalni
raziskavi) Še intenzivneje pritegniti k snovanju stalne razstave s postavitvijo "razstave -
testa". Ob tej bomo izvedti tako imenovano formativno oziroma oblikovalno raziskavo
(prim. Van-Praët). Dva izseka zanušljene celote na osnovi scenarijev razstavne zgodbe in
študijsldh zbhk bosta od jimija 1997 razstavljena v prvi muzejski hiši v stavbnem sestavu
na Metelkovi. Oblikovana bosta tako, da ju bo mogoče na osnovi anahze odzivnosti
raztičruh skupin obiskovalcev in njihovih mnenj ustrezno preoblikovati. Pričakujemo,
da nam bosta tako obe raziskavi, pripravljalna in oblikovalna, kot izidi pogovorov, na
katere bomo ob "razstavi - testu" vabiti krog etnologov, pomagati do končnega scenarija
za stalno razstavo. Za slednjo si namreč žetimo, da bi jo sprejel za svojo kar najširši krog
v m\izeje zahajajočega občinstva in da bi pritegnüa premnoge nove obiskovalce.
Besedüo Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej, ki mu sledita zadnja
osnutka Janje Žagar in Andreja Dularja, končujem z nantišljertim obiskom muzeja in s
sprehodom po stahti razstavi; z izmišljijo, v katero sem poskusUa strniti nekaj spoznanj
iz razpravljanj in ogledov ter kup zamisti, porojerdh v pretektih mesedh.
Vrnila sem se s potovanja. Ko se začnem vživljati v ljubljanski vsakdan s prebiranjem
nakopičenih časopisov, se zazrem v številne objave dolgo pričakovane novice: končno so odprli
stalno postavitev v razstavni palači Slovenskega etnografskega muzejal Od radovednosti me kar
privzdigne. Zadnja leta, odkar so se preselili v prvo izmed obeh hiš na Metelkovi, sem pogosto in
rada zahajala v ta muzej. V njem je bilo vedno prijetno vzdušje, tu in tam manjša razstava,
živahna predavanja, ogledi etnoloških filmov, predstavitve knjig, komorni glasbeni dogodki in
ustvarjalne muzejske delavnice. Vsi, ki smo se tam srečevali, smo s pričakovanjem in z nestrpnostjo
pogledovali proti drugi, večji stavbi, za katero smo že iz načrtov vedeli, da raste v zanimivo
razstavno hišo. In zdaj je odprta. Danes sicer nimam časa v izobilju, a z mlajšim, osemletnim,
sinom se vseeno odpraviva do muzeja. Ustvariti si želim vsaj prvi vtis o novi stalni razstavi.
Že ob vstopu v prostorno večnadstropno avlo sva prijetno presenečena. Prostor, ki mu
dajejo toplino naravni materiali, je sodobno oblikovan, in vendar na tak način, da te v njem
preplavi duh vsebine muzeja. Tudi muzejski vstopnici sta oblikovalsko ubrani z vsebino; shraniva
ju za spomin na najin prvi obisk. Na levi strani zagledava mikavno muzejsko trgovino. Zavem
se, da po ogledu ne bom mogla iz muzeja, ne da bi stopila vanjo. V avli je kar dosti ljudi: eni
posedajo, drugi odhajajo proti stopnicam, tretji zavijajo proti pritličnim dvoranam k ogledu
občasne razstave ali pa na drugo stran, k mojstrom v muzejske delavnice, četrte zagledava med
spuščanjem v kabini steklenega dvigala. Potem na vidnem mestu uzreva jasen, zelo razumljiv
načrt muzeja in shemo stalne razstave.
Iz sheme je mogoče razbrati, da stalno postavitev sestavlja več celot, ki so vsaka
razstava zase in ki jih je mogoče obiskati ločeno ali pa si jih ogledati v zamišljenem
zaporedju.Naslovi posameznih razstavnih celot so jezikovno prijazni, razumljivi nosilci nekaterih
34
Projekt imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej
idej, vendar obenem malce skrivnostni, tako da prav vabijo k ogledu vsebin, kijih nosijo besede:
1. Podobe preteklosti - "Noč časa"
2. Zgodba o preživetju in o razkošju - "Kontrapunkt življenja"
3. Urejeni svet predmetov - "Enciklopedija stvari"
4. Etno-AbecedaŽ
5. Naj-reči:
- Čupa, najdaljši, najenovitejši muzejski predmet
- Čanca, najnenavadnejši, najskrivnostnejši muzejski predmet
Stopiva do prvega nadstropja in se znajdeva na začetku poti ogleda, pred vhodom v
kinodvorano. Povsod visijo plakati, ki napovedujejo napet zgodovinski film z naslovom "Noč
časa". Je to začetek razstave? Uniformiran biljeter pregleda najini vstopnici in naju spusti v
temo dvorane, kjer se zatopiva v nenavadno posnet film, kombinacijo stvarnih podob in animacije,
ki naju kot pripoved posameznika o življenju prednikov vodi skozi slovenski prostor, skozi
njegovo gospodarsko in družbeno zgodovino, skozi razvoj posameznih kulturnih sestavin, od
naselitve do prvih desetletij 19. stoletja. Šele ko je filma konec, se zavem, kako uspešno so naju
z domačim, sodobnim medijem, z gibljivimi filmskimi podobami potegnili iz vsakdana z začetka
21. stoletja v nek drug čas, v pretekle življenjske zgodbe. Neboleče sva izkusila muzejski "rite
de passage", obred prehoda in tako pripravljena vstopiva v prvi razstavni prostor, na začetek
Zgodbe o preživetju in o razkošju. Ko sva odhajala iz kinodvorane, sva vzdolž leve strani
prehoda opazila svetleč časovni trak z besedili in podobami, kije na drug vizualen način sporočal
v bistvenem enako vsebino kot film; za tiste obiskovalce, ki dvorano le prehodijo in si ne vzamejo
časa za njegov ogled. Nama vsekakor ni žal, da sva se - presenečena nad takim začetkom ogleda
stalne razstave in nad prijaznim likom biljeterja - kar pogreznila v mehkobo dvorane in v
uvodno zgodbo "Noči časa".
Ob vstopu v "Kontrapunkt življenja" oziroma v Zgodbo o preživetju in o razkošju
se najprej srečava s človekom; z namišljenima žensko in moškim, s posameznikoma, s fizično-
antropološkimi in značajskimi značilnostmi Slovencev, kot so jih opisovali in zaznali Valvasor,
Hacquet, Linhart. Prostor s to predstavitvijo naju posrka, kot da sva ujeta med stene maternice.
Potem izstopiva in se znajdeva v pomladnem jutru v okolju dveh kmečkih domov: premožnega
kmeta in kajžarja, goslača. Od tod skozi scene življenja spremljava namišljena dekle in fanta,
ženo in moža, od tridesetih let 19. stoletja do let med svetovnima vojnama; skozi koledarsko leto
od pomladi do zime, od jutra do noči, od rojstva do smrti; v okviru rodbine in družine v domu,
na dvorišču, v gospodarskih poslopjih, ob delu; v okviru vaške skupnosti na vaškem trgu ob
žegnanju, o pustu in poroki; v okviru regije na poti v mesto, v trg, rm živilski trg, na romanje;
skozi srečanje s posvetno in cerkveno oblastjo; skozi odhajanje v svet in srečevanje s tujimi
kulturami in v okviru drugih razsežnosti, kot so spominjanje, izročanje znanj, pripovedovanje
pravljic, zgodovinskih in popotnih doživetij.
Presenečena sem, kakšno razstavo so domislili. Sredi nje se vseskozi zavedaš, da si v
etnološkem muzeju; stopiš v tok življenja in skozenj spremljaš človeka, sporočenega s
predmeti, ki označujejo njegovo socialno okolje, opredeljujejo čas, v katerem je živel, in prostor.
Človek je tu in tam tudi vizualno prisoten, vendar ne kot realistična lutka. Tem so se na srečo
izognili. {Spomnim se jih iz nekaterih angleških in škotskih muzejev pa tudi iz pariškega Musée de
l'homme. Kako odbijajoče, groteskno so delovale name! Vzbujale so mi asociacijo m vzdušje cenenih
zabavišč in hiš strahov. PariSka znanka mi je pravila, kako so se zaradi pretiravanja z realističnimi scenami
in lutkami mediji kritično razpisali o nekaterih razstavah v Musée de l'homme; slednjega naj bi bili zaradi
35
Inja Smerdel
njih označili kot muzej, "qui se moque des hommes", ki se norčuje iz ljudi.) Izognili so se tudi pretiranemu
scenskemu koketiranju z resničnostjo. Stvarna okolja so upodobljena na simbolni ravni, a
so vseeno nedvoumno prepoznavna. Z razstavo, s tem samostojnim medijem, so zavestno
ustvarili novo - muzejsko resničnost, vendar takšno, ki obiskovalcem prijazno približa v predmetih
in v nekaterih drugih virih sporočena minula bivanja.
Skozi postavitev je prepoznavna tudi igra nasprotja med preživetjem in razkošjem,
ki jo nosi naslov te celote stalne razstave; še posebej pa je mogoče premišljati o njeni
temeljni ideji, o cikličnosti življenja. Delamo od sobote do naslednje sobote, koprnimo od
poletja do poletja, se gibljemo od božiča do božiča... Zavem se, kako vsakdanje prisotno, kako
blizu mi je z razstavo sporočeno kroženje. Pa tudi širjenje; od mikro-nivoja doma do odhajanja
v svet, celo v prostranstva tujih svetov. Ta del razstave me je spet presenetil. Srečevanja z
nekaterimi zunajevropskimi kulturami so prikazali skozi upodobitev slovenskih predstav
o prebivalcih tujih dežel in o njihovem življenju (naprimer med potomci primorskih izseljencev
zabeležene predstave, da v Braziliji balinajo s pomarančami in podobnih), ki so jo soočili s predmetnim
gradivom, pričevalnem o izsekih stvarnega življenja v nekaterih izmed teh dežel.
Tako zamišljena kar naenkrat opazim, da sin ni več ob meni. Najdem ga, ko zapušča enega
izmed ne preštevilnih dotikalnih ekranov, na katerem je odkrival dodatne informacije, in odhaja
proti skupinici otrok, ki sredi prostora z muzejsko pedagoginjo vneto preizkušajo delovanje
replike neke naprave. Spomnim se, da sva že prej sledila besednim in vizualnim dodatkom,
ki so se nevsiljivo pojavljali poleg vodilnih legend in posamezne vsebine jedrnato
umeščali v zgodovinsko dogajanje ter ponujali socialne in regionalne primerjave. Všeč
mi je tak muzejev odnos do obiskovalca. Razstavo lahko doživi že ob sprehodu skoznjo; a če želi,
lahko raziskuje, se izobražuje. Po več znanja o posameznih predmetih in kulturnih sestavinah
ga napotijo še v Urejeni svet predmetov ali "Enciklopedijo stvari".
Midva to razstavno celoto tokrat le prehodiva. Ne da bi si kaj dosti ogledovala, jo zapuščava
z vtisom o čudoviti raznolikosti razstavljenega, o preraznih oblikah, vzorcih, funkcijah, znanjih,
h katerim se bom sama še večkrat vračala. Sin hiti vEtno-AbecedaŽ in kot je pravilno presodil,
gre za prav poseben, otrokom namenjen razstavni prostor, ki so ga umestili v zadnje,
tretje nadstropje med študijski razstavi slovenskega in drugega, zlasti zunajevropskega
Urejenega sveta predmetov.
V prostoru je razburljivo živahno. Pod vsako črko abecede zagledava razstavljen posamezen
predmet - kot muzejsko seme - ob njem pa se na podestu in na policah nabirajo nove prerazne
reči, ki jih prinašajo in urejajo otroci. V AbecedaŽu sva ravno ob Dnevu za mlade zbiratelje.
Prineseni predmeti so od vsepovsod: z vasi, iz mesta, iz drugih dežel. Z otroki so muzejski
kustosi, ki jim pomagajo pri urejanju kartotek, pri vnašanju podatkov v računalnik. Sin mi takoj
šepne, da bo naslednjič tudi on prišel v muzej s pridobitvijo za Etno-AbecedaŽ. Potem zagledava
pri vsaki črki kup predalov in vratc. Moj radovednež jih začne odpirati in presenečen odkrije, da
se v nekaterih skrivajo manjši predmeti, v drugih pa le fotografije ali risbe predmetov z imeni, z
osnovnimi podatki in z napotki, kje v muzeju je o njih mogoče izvedeti še kaj več. V posameznih
predalih odkrije le besede; naprimer pod črko L besedo lončar in napotek, naj obišče mojstra
lončarja v muzejski delavnici v pritličju. Sin kar ne more odnehati. Potegne me še k črki Č.
Izvlečeva ravno predala, v katerih najdeva fotografiji čupe in čance, predmetov, ki se ju spomniva
iz sheme stalne razstave kot dveh Naj-reči. Napotek, ki se skriva v predalu, naju usmeri prav k
ogledu te razstavne celote. Čeprav uživam, se tokrat nisem nameravala tako dolgo zadržati v
muzeju; sinu zato predlagam, da Naj-reči prihraniva za naslednji obisk. A moj poskus je
zaman; čupa in čanca sta ga preveč vznemirili, morava še do njiju.
36
Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej
Najprej naju prevmme čupa. Potopiva se v modrino razstavnega prostora z zgodbo o
ogromnem, sedem metrov dolgem ribiškem drevaku, v kakršnem so stoletja odhajali na morje
slovenski ribiči iz vasi od Trsta do Timave. Sin ima o njem sto vprašanj in na razstavi radovedno
odkriva odgovore.
Potem stopiva še v prostor druge naj-reči, čance. V trepetajočem mraku, ki vzbuja občutje
tropskega pragozda, jo odkrijeva kot zares najnenavadnejši, najskrivnostnejši predmet: trofejo iz
kože človeške glave z ohranjenimi lasmi, umetno skrčeno na velikost jabolka. Njena magična
zgodba povzema utrinke iz življenja južnoameriškega indijanskega plemena jivaro.
Polna čudenja zapuščava Naj-reči. Tako razstavno izpostavljeni nama bosta ostali še
posebej v spominu. Ob tem pomislim, kako mikavni za muzejske obiskovalce so prav
zaradi česarkoli izjemni muzejski predmeti. Nekateri zgolj z njimi povezujejo spomin na
obisk posameznega muzeja. Tako smo se otroci spominjali ljubljanskega Prirodoslovnega muzeja
kot tistega, kjer imajo mamuta; a je v njem še toliko drugih zanimivosti.
Slovenski etnografski muzej nama kot kaže ne bo ostal v spominu samo zaradi čupe in
čance, temveč kot muzej, ki ga kar nisva mogla zapustiti. Kljub časovni stiski tega dne, ki jo
najino dolgo raziskovalno potepanje le poveča, se prepustiva dobremu razpoloženju ter se z mapo
nabranih zloženk in reklamnih muzejskih tiskovin za konec usedeva še v vrl prijazne muzejske
kavarne, v senčni objem dveh stoletnih platan.
VIRI IN SLOVSTVO
BAŠ, Angelos, 1968
O predmetu etnologije (Teze za diskusijo). V: Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje, n.v. 4.
Maribor, str. ITi-lTl.
BALOGH-HORVATH, Terézia, 1994
Die Traditionelle Kultur des ungarischen Volkes, Ständige Ausstellimg des
Ethnographischen Museitms. Budapest.
BEITL, Klaus, 1994
Zum Geleit. V: Österreichisches Museum ßr Volkskunde, Schausammlung zur historischen
Volkskultur, Begleitbuch. Wien, str. 7-12.
CUISENIER, lean, de TRICORNOT, Marie-Chantal, 1987
Musée national des arts et traditions populaires, Guide. Paris.
ČEPLAK, Ralf, 1991
Kako naj vam prodamo modrino neba. V: Etnolog 1 (Lil). Ljubljana, str. 195-200.
DESCHMANN, Kari, 1888
Führer durch das Krainische Landes-Museum Rudolphinum in Laibach. Ljubljana.
DESVALLÉES, André, 1976
Galerije v novem sedežu muzeja. V: Javne zbirke in muzeji 134(2). (Tipkopis prevoda.)
DUCLOS, lean-Claude, 1996
Place de l'écomusée dans l'évolution de la pensée muséologique/Vloga ekomuzeja v
razvoju muzeološke misli. V: Etnolog 4 (LVl), 1995. Ljubljana, str. 283-312.
EMYA, 1996
Making "heritage" rh5Tne with "society". V: EMYA(European Museum of the Year Award)-
Magazine, No.2., Winter '96. Bristol, str. 6-7.
GAČNIK, Aleš, 1995
Med močjo in nemočjo predmeta: predmet kot vez med neoetnografijo in muzeologijo.
V: Razvoj slovenske etnologije od Štreklja in Murka do sodobnih etnoloških prizadevanj.
Zbornik prispevkov s kongresa (Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, 24.-27. oktober 1995).
Ljubljana, str. 221-229.
37
Inja Smerdel
38
GOLOB, France, 1996
Baragova zbirka, Historiat in oris (tipkopis, str.15).
GOLOB, France, 1996/97
Avtorjevo gradivo za nastajajoči članek o modelih v SEM. Vir: Hlyrisches Blatt, nr. 30, 27.
juli 1833, Str. 123.
HORVAT, Jasna, 1992
Muzejske razstave - nadomestek ali nova resničnost? V: Argo XXXIU-XXXIV 1992.
Ljubljana, str. 4-7.
HUSHION, Nancy, 1992
La vie muséologique canadienne: jeunesse et innovation. V: Forces, Revue de
documentation économique, sociale et culturelle. Montréal, str. 34-39.
KERŠ1Č, Irena, 1983
Pota in razpotja Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja. V: Zbornik 1. kongresa jugoslovanskih
etnologov in folkloristov, 2. zv. Ljubljana, str. 477-489.
KERŠIČ, Irena, 1993
Etnografski muzeji v Evropi regij. O identiteti etnoloških muzejev v Sloveniji. V: Etnolog
3 (LIV). Ljubljana, str. 282-285.
KREMENŠEK, Slavko, 1960/61
Nekaj pripomb. V: Glasnik Slovenskega etnografskega društva 3/2. Ljubljana, str. 7-8.
KREMENŠEK, Slavko, 1974
O razsežnostih pojmov "ljudska kultura" in "sodobne spremembe". V: Simpozijum
EtnoloSko proučavanje savremenih promena u narodnoj kulturi, 20.-30. januar 1974,
Etnografski inštitut SANU, posebna izdanja, 1. Beograd, str. 23-31.
KREMENŠEK, Slavko, 1983
O ljudstvu in ljudski kulturi, Etnološki razgledi in dileme I. Ljubljana.
KUHAR, Boris, 1983
Šestdeset let etnografskega muzeja. V: Slovenski etnograf XXXII (1980-1982). Ljubljana,
str. l.-V.
MAKAROVIČ, G., Gorazd, 1983
Zbirka ljudske umetnosti. V: Slovenski etnograf XXXII (1980-1982). Ljubljana, str. 87-112.
MAKAROVIČ, M., Marija, 1983
Tekstilna zbirka. V: Slovenski etnograf XXXII (1980-1982). Ljubljana, sb:. 69-86.
MARKS, Richard, 1992
Izgradnja novega muzeja: vlogi kustosa in arhitekta ter njuni odnosi pri načrtovanju in
vodenju projekta. V: Manual of Curatorship, A Guide to Musexmi Practice, 2nd Edition,
Edited by John M.A. Thomson. (Tipkopis prevoda.)
MURŠIČ, Rajko, 1995
Oddaljeni pogled na preplete etnološke samorefleksije: etnološki raziskovalni programi.
V: Razvoj slovenske etnologije od Štreklja in Murka do sodobnih etnoloških prizadevanj,
Zbornik prispevkov s kongresa (Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, 24.-27.oktober 1995).
Ljubljana, sti-. 147-154.
OREL, Boris, 1948
V novo razdobje. V: Slovenski etnograf I (1948). Ljubljana, sti. 5-8.
OREL, Boris, 1954
O etnografskih zbirkah iz Afrike, Amerike in Azije v Etnografskem muzeju v Ljubljani.
V: Slovenski etnograf VI-VII (1953-1954). Ljubljana, sti. 139-146.
PRADO, Patiick, 1995
L'ethnologie française au musée? Ou un nouveau musée de l'ethnologie de la France? V:
Terrain 25, Carnets du patiimoine ethnologique. Paris, str. 147-157.
RIVIERE, Georges Henri, 1989
Muzej in družba. Etnologija, antiopologija, folklora. V: La muséologie (tipkopis prevoda
iz zbornika). Paris.
ROGELJ-ŠKAFAR, Bojana, 1993
Slovenski etnografski muzej. Sprehod skozi čas in le dekio skozi prostor. Ljubljana.
ROGELJ-ŠKAFAR, Bojana, 1995
Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej
Slovenski etnografski muzej od ustanovitve do danes. V: Razvoj slovenske etnologije od
Štreklja in Murka do sodobnih etnoloSkih prizadevanj, Zbornik prispevkov s kongresa
(Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, 24.-27. oktober 1995). Ljubljana, str. 213-220.
SLAVEC GRADIŠNIK, Ingrid, 1995
Med narodopisjem in antropologijo, O razdaljah in bUžinah. V: Razvoj slovenske etnologije
od Štreklja in Murka do sodobnih etnoloških prizadevanj, Zbornik prispevkov s kongresa
(Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, 24.-27. oktober 1995). Ljubljana, str. 125-140.
SMERDEL, Inja, 1983
Ljudsko gospodarstvo. V: Slovenski etnograf, XXXH (1980-1982). Ljubljana, str. 1-26.
SMERDEL, Inja, 1990
Etnološka razstava Kam so vsi pastirji ŠU..., Miselno popotovanje od raziskave do
razstave z uvodnim in z nekaterimi obpotnimi postanki. V: Argo, XXIX-XXX. Ljubljana.
SMERDEL, Inja, 1994
Oselniki, Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja. Ljubljana.
SMERDEL, Inja, 1995
Slover\ski etnografski muzej in kulturna identiteta. V: Znanost na Slovenskem danes in
jutri. Ljubljana, str. 51-54.
ŠMITEK, Zmago, 1995
Neevropska etnologija v Sloveniji aH koliko daleč vidimo. V: Razvoj slovenske etnologije od
Štreklja in Murka do sodobnih etnoloških prizadevanj. Zbornik prispevkov s kongresa
(Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, 24.-27. oktober 1995). Ljubljana, str. 155-160.
ŠTRUKELJ, Pavla, 1983
Neevropske zbirke v Muzeju Goričane. V: Slovenski etnograf XXXII (1980-1982).
Ljubljana, str. 125-158.
TSCHOFEN, Bernhard, 1994
Volkskultur im Museum oder Den Alltag muss man sich deiJ^en. V: Österreichisches
Museum ßr Volkskunde, Schausammlung zur historischen Volkskultur, Begleitbuch.
Wien, Str. 15-26.
VAN-PRAËT, Michel
Une rénovation muséographique a la convergence d'un lieu, de publics et d'idées scientifiques.
(Kopija avtorjevega članka, str. 13-23.)
(VURNIK, Stanko), 1926/27
Kr. etnografski muzej v Ljubljani, njega zgodovina, delo, načrti in potrebe. V: Etnolog 1.
Ljubljana, str. 139-144.
39
40
THE PROJECT CALLED
THE SLOVENE ETHNOGRAPHIC MUSEUM"
Inja Smerdel
INTRODUCTION
The basic aim of the article written under the above mentioned title is a uitiform
presentation of the proposals and some other ideas that originated or were brought up
during the one-year process of planning the museum's future permanent exhibition.
The exhibition wiU be set up in Uie new exhibition halls that are part of a complex of
buildings known as "Metelkova" by a team of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum assisted
by external collaborators.
Considertiig it sensible to set this presentation in the broader context of the
comprehensive project for the renovated museum; to make it tiie conclusion of a cross-
section of what occurred to the museimi and in it from its beginnings; to present the
architecture and functions of its future halls; and to explain the road that led to the
proposals for the contents of the musetim's permanent exhibition, the present article has
a broader range and consists of separate chapters, corresponding with tiiemes listed
above. Its composition and final wording draw on a number of ethnological and
museological articles and discussions, from exhibitions I had the privilege to visit, to
lectures, ideas and an abrmdance of informal discussions.
THE INSTTTUTION, TTS PREMISES AND RESOURCES
The here presented cross-section of what happened to the Ethnographic Museimi
and in it, is terse, timited to essential changes, and occasionally merely refers to the
initial and present conditions since the development of the museum from its foundation
imtil today has in recent years been the subject of several in-deptii studies (see, especially,
Rogelj-Škafar, 1993,1995), and it would therefore make tittle or no sense to repeat theti-
findings in their entirety.
As an institution the Slovene Ethnographic Museum received its present name in
the 1960s. It was foimded (in 1923) as The Royal Ethnographic Museum, changed its
name into Ethnographic Museum after the Second World War, and the adjective Slovene
was added in 1964 (following an irütiative of the museum's then director Boris Kuhar), in
order to have the name point out "that it is the central Slovene ethnological museum
and institution" (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993). The present name has been preserved because of its
tradition as a national museum institution.
The project called The Slovene Ethnographic Museum
For reasons of tradition and other historical, spatial and tiieoiitical conceptions of
U\e word "ethnographic", we have also preserved this basic content-oriented adjective
in the museiun's name, ti:\ough Ü\e work tiiat is carried out in it, tiie museum's ambitions,
and the contents of ti:\e collections might support its replacement with an adjective wiüi
wider associations, for instance "ethnological" or even "anthropological museum" .
The begirmings of ihe ethnographic museum were the "ethnographic" and/or
"folklore collections" of tiie Camiohan Provincial Museum in Ljubljana, founded in 1821.
The origin of the ethnographic museum as an institiation resulted from the efforts of a
single person, Niko Županič, the first academically ti-ained Slovene ethnologist and anthro-
pologist (as well as man of the world and diplomat) who m 1923 succeeded in obtaining the
permission of the Minishy of Education of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to found tiie
Royal Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana. One year later, this rathei untypical "one-
man institution and late-comer in the run of contemporary developments in and around
most of Europe's etimographic museums got its first employee, an assistant, in tiie per-
son of art historian Stanko Vumik, who was to become the main and besides Županič
the only specialized scientific worker in \he museum. In 1926 Vumik wrote (in a chronicle
entitled the Royal ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana, its history, activities, plar« and needs,
published in the first volume of the museum's scientific journal Etnolog) about the ethnogra-
phic museum's spatial problems in terms that are so characteristic and illustiative of
nearly the entire history of the institution - with later variations and perhaps sUghtly
different accents - that they have remained hue all through the museum's seventy years
of existence: "... a (permanent) exhibition space. Concerning this room or hall, at present one
of the museum's most urgent requirements, many steps have been taken with the provincial
and central governments in the past three years. The National Museum (the main successor of the
Camiolian Provincial Museum) has become absolutely too small even for its own ambitions, and in
its building the ethnographic museum cannot expand properly. But the budget item that would
allow a new and special building to be built for the ethnographic museum in Ljubljana is as yet
at a deadlock, beyond which there is no solution unless the government finds a way to support
the work of the ethnographic museum with higher subsidies."
The tiiree exhibition halls, acquired m the National Museum building in 1947, the
opening of branch exhibition halls in the sixties, tiie acquisition of new work premises in
the attic of the National Museum in the eighties: these changes did not amount to a
satisfactory and final solution for tiie etimographic museum's lack of space. In the search
for better solutions many ideas emerged from various circles; this lasted until the 90s
when before, during and after the process of Slovenia achieving independence more
favourable times came and the museum's stiinggle for an own building invigorated
considerably. These efforts are symboUcally marked by the case of "Mladika", originally
tiie municipal Lyzeum for girls, and later a mihtary hospital. The building (designed by
architect and functionalist Maks Fabiani) remained unoccupied after the departure of the
Yugoslav Army and appeared to be quite suitable premises for tiie etimographic museum.
In spite of our embarrassment concerning possible political manipulations, tiiough far
from non-existent in the etiinologist's historical memory, tiie staff of tiie etimographic
museum tiied to benefit from this period, charged witii emotions and political agitation,
and we dehberately based our written and oral actions also on poUtical accents; we were
convinced, however, tiiat we agitated for our own, sufficiently spacious museum witii
the legitimacy of a sovereign scientific discipline and national cultiiral institution (Smerdel,
1995). Looking back, it appears tiiat tiie developments had to go as far as the poUtidsed
41
Inja Smerdel
commotion around "Mladika", meeting with exceptional approval from the public and
part of the political circles as well as rejection by oÜ\ers, to make the autiiorities aware of
tiie Slovene Ethnographic Museum as an estabtished, full-grown cultural institution of
national importance and tiiat in order to carry out its message and realise its fundamental
social role according to "the ABC of museum activities" (Duclos,1996) the museum
defirütely required suitable prentises.
To meet, beside other needs, also this requirement the government of the Republic
of Slovertia decided to allocate the southern wing of a complex of miUtary buildings in
Metelkova Street to cultural institutions. In June of 1994 the buildings were handed over
to the Ministry of Culture for the needs of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum and other
cultural institutior\s. The agreement, signed on March 29, 1995 by the museum's then
director Ivan Sedej, provides that the ministi-y allocates to the Ethnographic Museum
two of the six buildings in the southern wing of Metelkova (areas; 3,500 and 1,900 square
metres) for exhibition purposes and nearly aU other museum activities; shortly afterwards
and imder the same agreement the museum also obtained 2,000 sq. metres of depository
prentises in the same complex. In co-operation with the Municipality of Ljubljana and
the Ministry of Culture a competition was annoimced (in July 1995), inviting proposals
for the architectural and town-planning renovation of the southern wing of the former
complex of military buildings as well as proposals for the renovation of the northern
wing from the point of view of town-plarming only. The competition invited proposals
for the urban arrangement, renovation of the buildings and possible extensions to the
so-called Belgian barracks from the times of the Austrian-Himgarian monarchy, that is
historical buildings dating from the end of the 19th century. It was expected tiiat the
renovation would provide an elegant solution for a number of museums and other
institutions, thus creating a new, tively cultural venue of Ljubljana that would attract
people because of its multi-cultural nature (housing the following institutions or parts of
them : the Slovene Ethnographic Museum, the National Museum, the Modem Gallery; the Academy
of Theatre, Film and Television, as well as a range of non-institutional creative endeavours.)
It seems appropriate that the two decisions mentioned in the above paragraph
conclude our negative story about resources for the ethnographic museum's spatial
problems to which Vurrtik referred in the first years of the museum's existence with the
foUowing words: (an exhibition space is ) "one of the ethnographic museum's most
urgent requirements", and, on anotiher occasion: "the deadlock in the budget concerning
the building of a new museum" (Vumik, 1927). The 1995 budget provided among
investinent projects in culture an item "Metelkova - The Slovene Ethnographic Museimi"
thus enabUng the musetim to start (in 1996) the renovation of the interior of the first,
smaller bitilding. The renovation of this bitilding is less demanding and was not included
in the competition, though it is treated as part of the complex of buildings. The costs for
the renovation of tiiis building amount to 241,000,000 tolars (or 2,680,000 DM) for the
bitilding, installation and finishing works, exclusive of furnishings. Keeping in mind
that an assessment of the investment necessary to renovate the second, larger and more
demanding building of the ethnographic museum as well as the appertaining
underground depositories, amounts to approx. 1,183,000,000 tolars (13,252,000 DM), and
recalling what else is expected to happen in the complex of buüdings in Metelkova, ti:iis
new cultural venue of Ljubljana, which certainly is a challenge, we can only hope that
the political and culture-oriented decisions that made way for the beginning of works in
Metelkova wül be foUowed by others and lead to a successful and correct reatisation.
42
_The project called The Slovene Ethnographic Museum_
43
When we elaborated the program for a comprehensive project of the new
ethnographic museum in Metelkova, required for the competition inviting proposals for
architectural and urban-planning solutions, we had a vision of a museum which in the
world of museums has become known in recent years imder tiie perhaps fashionable
but otiierwise rich and meaningful concept word of a "(user-) friendly museum". We
envisaged a modem ethnographic museum witii high, intemationally comparable stan-
dards, a Uvely cultural, scientific and educational institution tiiat would offer to its visitors
not only attractive exhibitions, a variety of events and museimi workshops, not orüy
opportimities for discovering, learning, enjoying, inter-action, dreaming and reflections,
but also everytiiing else tiiat would contribute to their physical well-being. What we
planned was a museum that would take care of tiie objects it holds in accordance with
intemational standards, that is provide for tiieir safety, provide tiie necessary conditions
for keeping and exhibiting tiiem; and we also plarmed it to be an institiation tiiat would
enable its staff to find sensible links between the different processes of museum work,
and offer them pleasant, stimulative work premises.
We thus envisaged a division into tiiree interconnected units:
1. the exhibition palace, the largest and most representative building m the southern
wing of the complex of buildings, entirely open to the public (including the halls of the
permanent exhibition, those for temporary exhibitions, the museum's workshops, a museum shop
and coffee shop ...);
2. tiie adjacent, smaller building, conditionally called tiie management building,
would be reserved for admirüstiation, information, research, audio-visual, pubhshing,
conservation, restoration, and other activities (with a public reading-room, lecture room and
small exhibition room);
3. in between the two buildings and coimected with both of them: the museirai's
undergroimd depositories. ( A similar division was adopted by the planners of the new Museum
of Civilisation in Hull, Canada, which opened in 1989 (Hushion, 1992): one building for
administration, cor\servation and depositories and a second one entirely for the exhibitions.)
The concept we submitted for the museum's contents was in general respected by
the participants in the competition. The desired functional scheme of the future rooms in
the ethnographic museum's exhibition palace and tiie connections witii the depository
and management building are best illustrated by tiie winning solution called Forum, the
work of architects Samo and Gorazd Groleger, Miroslav Kvas and Maja Štefula. (See pp.
21-23.)
The acquired premises, this fundamental condition for a normal development and
functioning of tiie institution tiiat we had to wait for so long, stimulated in tiie ethno-
graphic museum above all ethnological and museographical reflections on tiie permanent
exhibition (see the following chapters). But they also brought the opportunity and
requirement to plan new museimi services and staff of tiie kind tiiat are quite common
in well-run museimi institutions of similar significance and size, for instance a receptionist,
ticket seller, maintenance worker, photographer and a pubHc relations officer.
There is no doubt that in the past seventy years the ethnographic museum
developed - despite its lack of space - far beyond the "one-man institution" (Niko Županič)
of 1923 and, shortly afterwards, the "two-men museum" (Županič and Vumik) and that
its progress was more or less in accordance with the growing collections, library and
documentation and witii the expansion of research and exhibition activities. In 1995 tiie
Inja Smerdel
institution had a staff of twenty-five including :
- five persons in management (director, secretary, accountant, cashier, bursar, courier/cleaner);
- Six curators and researchers (folk art, social culture and customs, rural economy, crafts and
trade, clothing culture and textiles, architecture and home furnishings);
- four in the information and documentation service (three curators and documentalists, a
computer expert);
- a curator and librarian in the museum library;
- a curator and pedagogue in tiie museum's pedagogic and adult education service;
- four in the museimi's conservation and restoration workshops (head of the workshops,
restorers of wood, metal and textiles) and
- three in tiie branch museum in the Goričane mansion (a curator of non-European cultures,
- a courier/cleaner and concierge).
In spring 1995 a short-term and long-term concept was elaborated of the further
development of the institution and its staff, in accordance with the museum's statutory
tasks (some of the museum's basic tasks are listed in the new Foundation Act and summarised
here: (The Slovene Ethnographic Museum) collects, conserves, restores, arranges, documents,
preserves and scientifically researches objects, written, printed, pictorial and sound sources for
ethnological research into different ways of life and cultures in Slovenia, the border areas and,
when possible, also elsewhere; it prepares exhibitions and other forms of presenting the findings
of museum work; pubHshes specialist, scientific and other publications...; co-operates with
educational institutions, is responsible for the popularisation of its activities, manages the central
ethnological library..; ... carries out and organises ethnological scientific research activities in
Slovenia and elsewhere...), and in accordance with the envisaged solution of its spatial
problems. The well-foimded proposal foresees the following present and additional staff
m the new museum (by 2000):
- m ti:\e management: an assistant director;
- two additional curators, one for the Non-European collections and one for the future
collections of Slovene immigrants, the Slovenes living in the neighbourmg border areas,
and the national rrtinorities in Slovenia ; (desirable are also a curator of musical instruments
and one for mass culture);
- an additional librarian in the museum library;
- an additional restorer of wooden objects and restorer of textiles in the museum's conser-
vation and restoration workshop;
- in the new services of audio-visual documentation a head of the AV laboratory, a
photographer and a draughtsman;
- a suitably trained person in the new public relations service;
- in the new services : a maintenance worker, two receptionists, two cleaners (or a cleaner
and a cloak-room attendant) a ticket seller and six guards;
- in the coffee shop: a licensee;
- kl the muserrai shop: a licensee;
- in the museum workshops the following master craftsmen: a potterer, a wood-carver and turner,
a weaver, all of them users of the individual workshops.
This short- and long-term concept of the structure of the musexmi's staff was the
basis for the functional arrangement of the rooms in the first bitilding, the one conditionally
called the management building of the ethnographic museum (and partly also in the second
44
The project called The Slovene Ethnographic Museum
one, the exhibition palace). The first bmlding of Üie Slovene Etimographic Museum in
Metelkova is being renovated in accordance wiüi Uxe adopted arrangement and is expected
to be put into use in spring 1997. (See p. 25.)
A VIEW OF THE COLLECTIONS, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OBJECTS
AND SOME DEFINITIONS OF THE MUSEUM AND ITS PERMANENT
EXHIBITION
For Üie entü-e time of its existence the Slovene Ethnographic Museum as a national
institution has been a rather ambivalent museimi, especiaUy when compared with other
national and even provincial museums, prominent because of their buildings and
permanent exhibitions (there is some irony in the fact that it was precisely the Ethnographic
Museum's field research in the 50s which gave the ethnographic collections of some provincial
museums their first objects).
The ambivalent nature of the Slovene Ethnographic Museimi is shown in the
following aspects:
On the one hand it is a museum holding nationally and internationally sigrtificant
collections, Ulustrative especially of traditional culture in Slovenia and the everyday life
of the primarily peasant population; of its collections at least the following deserve special
mentioning: ploughing implements, the "most important collection of its kind in South-
eastern Europe" (as evaluated by Prof. Dr. Hai« Koren; Smerdel 1983); the urtique, all-Slovene
and most extensive collection of costumes, embroideries and laces (the entries in the
inventory books amoimted to 8572 items in 1983; Makarovič, M., 1983; the 1995 review counted
10,071 pieces); the coUection of folk art, "by far the largest and most representative of its kind"
and "the only all-Slovene collection of its kind" (Makarovič, G., 1983); the coUection of Bloke
skis, dormouse traps, masks, chests... Furthermore, the museum also holds some equally
important non-European collections, Ulustiative of individual cultural elements of some
"peoples of the world" and of the Slovene attitude towards them, of encounters witii
"ahen cultures"; among them deserve mentioning at least (most of them are known by the
names of their donors): the Baraga CoUection of objects from the native North-American
Ojibwa and Ottawa tribes; the Knoblehar CoUection of objects from the East-Sudanese
tribe of tiie Bari; The Skušek Chinese CoUection, "one of the biggest"; tiie "exceptionally
extensive, original and systematically collected" Bebler Indonesian Collection (Štrukelj, 1983)
and the Paul Schebesta CoUection (donated by Dr. Lambert Ehrlich), an ethnologist and
well-known researcher of the Pygirties.
On tiie other hand, however, the Slovene Ethnographic Museimi is a national
museum which untU recentiy - and in spite of the national and broader significance of its
collections - has remained deprived of its own premises (except for the branch museum of
non-European culhires in the Goričane mansion), suitable and sufficiently large exhibition
haUs and tiius did not meet the fuU mearting of tiie word museum.
"A collection is not a museum. It becomes a museum only when it forms a living part of
the culture to which it belongs", are the words of Michel Van-Praët (EMYA, 1996), one of
Europe's leading museologists, who, of course, was referring to exhibited collections. In
the case of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum, most of whose coUections are locked up
in depositories and are accessible to tiie pubtic only in tiie form of different interpretations
in merely temporary exhibitions, his opinion would be quite the same. It would not
45
Inja Smerdel
even surprise to have such a musetim judged to be the "home of confiscated heritage"
because it cannot fulfil one of its basic social roles, "that of giving back" (Duclos, 1996). In
museums "about people", such as the Slovene Ethnographic Museum undoubtedly is, "man
gives back to man what he has taken from him", in the poetic and binding words of George
Henri Riviere (Duclos, 1996).
The Slovenes and their national ethnographic museum are late-comers in the
Eiiropean context; but only as far as an own building is concerned, not when referring to
its collections. The major incentive for the origin of big central ethnographic museums in
Europe were the world expositions in the second half of the 19th centiuy. The Paris
World Exposition of 1867, for instance, had a special section devoted to "folk costumes
from the different provinces" of France and from other cormtries; especially notable
were the presentations of Norway and Sweden. The Stockholm Nordiska Museet was
foimded in 1873; the Paris Trocadéro was opened in 1884 ( as a paleo-anthropological and
mainly non-European museum), in the later Musée de 1' homme, deriving from similar
initiatives a "French hall" was set up in 1888 (Duclos, 1996), the embryo of the later Musée
des arts et traditions populaires. Similarly, the Vienna World Exposition of 1873 led to
the foimdation of Österreichisches Museimi für Volkskunde, which, at the end of the
First World War, exchanged its temporary halls in the stock exchange for the present
garden palace in Schönbom (Beitl, Tschofen, 1994). If Ljubljana had listened to the "lessons"
of Matija Murko, pubhshed towards the end of the 19th century - Murko had visited the
Great Ethnological Czechoslavonic Exhibition in Prague in 1895 and one year later repor-
ted on it publishing his famous "lessons for the Slovenes" advocating the foundation of
a Slovene ethnographic museum (Keršič, 1993) - the Slovenes would not have lagged
quite that much behind the then European-wide boom of ethnographic museums.
Unfortunately, Murko was not heard. And thus the Slovenes got their Royal Ethnographic
Museum (as a result of initiatives of a completely different nature) as late as 1923. For its ovm
premises, however, the institution had to wait another 72 years.
Quite different is the story of the collections. In 1821 the decision was adopted to
found the Camiolian Provincial Museum in Ljubljana (the precursor also of the SEM). Even
before they defined the five major fields of contents of the museum's collections (history,
statistics, natural science, technology and physics) the tmstees planned a special ethnographic
section (as part of the field covered by history) after the Joanneum in Graz. The section was
to include descriptions and pictures of costumes and buildings, folk and fairy tales,
wedding customs, folk songs and melodies (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993,1995). This contemporary
romantic orientation of the ethnographic section was overtaken by echoes of the
Enlightenment (and its interest in economy and agriculture, based on physiocratic principles)
in the concrete form of some objects that are considered to be the oldest acquisitions in the
Slovene Ethnographic Museum's present collections: three models of a waggon (for
carrying wheat and sugar), a plough and a harrow, originating from Planina near Rakek
and dating from 1833 (Golob, 1996/97); miniature models of "na Krainskim navadrüga
kmetouškiga orodia" ("peasant tools common in CamioUa") originating also from Planina
near Rakek and dating from 1835 (Smerdel, 1994) and a model of a double plough
(Deschmann, 1888). The first costumes, "figurines" carrying costumes from Bela krajina
(Čmomelj, Vinica and Bojanci), were registered as late as 1839 (Rogelj-Škafar, 1995). The
first and oldest collection of the present Slovene Ethnographic Museum, however, is
undoubtedly the collection of "ethnographic objects" from Nortii America, i.e. from the
46
_The project called The Slovene Ethnographic Museum_
47^
native bibes of tiie Ojibwa and Ottawa, donated to tiie Camiohan Provmcial Museum
by tiie missionary bishop Frederic Baraga, who had been asked to collect tiiem. The
chairman of the museiun's board of trustees, natural scientist Hohenwart had persuaded
Baraga's sister Amalija to write to her brotiier, the missionary, and ask him for
ethnographic objects of tiie "savages" (Golob, 1996). Hohenwart's interest in native
American objects was in tine with tiie tiien widespread natural sciences "cabinets of
curiosities", traces of which can be found in the first antiiropological museums (in the
mid 19th century they were known as ethnological or folklore museums and limited to non-
European cultures; Riviere, 1989).
From the very beginrting of the etimographic museimi's collections until the present
day one himdred and sbcty-one years have passed. By 1953, when Boris Orel made a
survey of tiie non-European collections, tiieir nimiber of objects had risen to 1242 ( though
this number is not quite correct since some objects that had already been received and inventorised,
continued to remain in the National Museum; Orel, 1954) and by 1983 when Pavla Štrukelj
wrote about tiiem, to more than 9500 objects.
The collections are arranged according to continents, as well as donors or sellers,
among whom we find researchers, globetrotters, missionaries, seamen, merchants and
chplomats. The tist of Egyptian objects, donated to the musexmi by consul Laurin, for
instance, dates from 1843; a coUection of objects from the East-Sudanese hibe of the Bari
was sent to Ljubljana by the missionary Ignacij Knoblehar in 1850; the CodeUi CoUection
from Togo, Nigeria and the Cameroon dates from 1912-1914; the coUection of objects "
coUected among the Pygmies of Cenfral Africa by Paul Schebesta, the well-known
etiinologist and researcher of the Pygmies", was entered in tiie Etimographic museum's
catalogue of holdings in 1941; back to 1912-1913 goes the "high-quality" Chinese coUection
of the missionary Peter Turk; in 1963 the museum received (from the National Museimi)
a representative Chinese coUection from Mrs. Skušek, née Tsuneko Kondo-Kavase; Vera
and Aleš Bebler's Indonesian collection dates from 1964, and in 1978 Vera and Ignac
Golob donated to the museum their Mexican coUection (Orel, 1954, Štrukelj, 1983).
However, more important than tiiese references to some of the most valuable or
extensive collections and their donors or seUers (the latest acquisition is a coUection of 336
African objects, sold to the museum by Anton Petkovšek) is undoubtecUy the information
value of the collected non-European objects. Careful reading of the survey of these
collections, carried out on the occasion of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum's sixtietii
armiversary and written by Pavla Šfrukelj (1983), leads to the conclusion that the larger
part consists of hunting gear and arms, jewelry and other clothing accessories (pipes,
bags, combs...), men's and women's clotiies, masks and musical insbimients; objects - one
might say - tiiat are especiaUy atfractive to coUectors because of their sfrange, different
and exotic rwture.
These objects are no doubt eloquent witnesses to some non-European cultures and
to some segments of everyday Ufe tiiere. However, the fact tiiat tiiey were largely coUected
because of their sfrange and exotic nature, is quite indicative of tiie coUectors' attitude to
tiiese cultures. "The Museum of Non-European Cultures is not a coUection of exotic
remnants, nor has it the intention to be one,... but intends to present in a most comprehensive
way the non-European cultures Slovenes came into contact witii and are or wiU continue to
be connected witii (Čeplak, 1991 ). This defirtition of a - at one time - envisaged separate
"Museum of Non-European Cultures" in the Goričane mansion (instead of being a branch
Inja Smerdel
museum of the Slovene Ethnographic Museimi) and of its permanent exhibition, dates from
1991, and, keeping in mind the collections' composition, must be judged as rather
unreaUstic and only half-way correct.
During the same period covering one hundred and sixty years, the Slovene
collections were formed on quite different premises. Instead of collecting objects from
"savages", searching for the strange and exotic, the collectors' efforts at first focused on
"national treasures", "the nation's jewels", "crafted by the mind and the hands of the
people, originating from the soul of the nation" (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993, Smerdel, 1983).
Geographically, the collections originated mainly from the former province of Camiola
or, even narrower, from Gorenjska and Bela krajina, thematically they included above all
textiles and folk art (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993).
More or less the same criteria also prevailed during the existence of the 1923 founded
Royal Ethnographic Museum in its efforts to enrich the collected heritage of the former
Rudolfinum, the Camiolian Provincial Museum. (From its main successor, the National
Museum, the Slovene Ethnographic Museum received 3502 objects that were in the ethnographic
collection). The ethnographic museum's main interest was in objects that were as old as
possible because tiieir particularities and characteristics were to prove that the Slovenes
may be a small nation but one witii a long history. The majority of tiie acquired objects
were not older than two centuries; among the provinces of origin Gorenjska and Bela
krajina continued to prevail and among the themes especially textiles and folk art. The
essential criterion was typology, msticity was conceived as an invariable constant and
no consideration was given to social differentiation (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993).
An essential change in tiie approach to collecting occurred for the first time in the
first two decades after the Second World War. It was the ambition of tiie then director
Boris Orel that the museum should present "a complete image of life in our countryside";
he defined ethnology as the science tiiat collects and studies "different material from
Slovene folk Ufe" or as a science "dealing with the cultural products of the Slovene
people and the laws of their development "(Orel, 1948). These were the guidelines
governing the monumental collection efforts of the so-called Orel field teams. (By the end
of 1962 no less than 18 teams had roamed the Slovene provinces). Their efforts ranged from
research and collection to documentation of cultural elements witiiin tiie framework of
the established division mto material, social and spiritual culture, and resulted in the
present variety of material and geographic origin in the collections. The collections mainly
consist of the following items : ploughing implements, other agricultural tools, devices
and machmes for cleaning and processing crops, hunting and fishing gear, hamesses,
means of transportation, furniture, household objects and implements, tools and products
of domestic craftsmen... The objects originate from the environs of Ljubljana, Dolenjska,
Nofranjska, Primorska, Štajerska and Koroška (i.e. besides Gorenjska and Bela krajina).
In the course of the last decades the collections have become even more varied as
far as themes, geographic and social origins are concerned; a development also due to
tiie increased number of curators. Their research, collecting and lively exhibition activities
were organised more or less in accordance with ethnological systematics and in
departinents of rural economy (transport and food), tiie crafts and frades, settlements,
architecture and home furnishings, costumes and other textiles, social culture (customs)
and folk art. An even more important influence was generated by tiie assertion of modem
theoretical views; that is by the shift from studying the history of cultural elements to
48
_The project called The Slovene Ethnographic Museum_
49
the bearers and theh attitude towards these cultural elements (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993). The
interest focused (also in the museum) on "man as the representative bearer of culture, and
the way of hfe was introduced as the relationship between man and his cultural and
natural environment as expressed in everyday routine". (Slavec Gradišnik, 1995). EÜmology
was defined as "a speciatised discipline of historiographie nature, dedicated to the research
of tiie everyday, common and typical cultioral forms and contents of Ufe of tiiose social
classes and groups that give to a certain etiiitic or national unit its specific character"
(Kremenšek, 1960/61 ).
The coUections reflect tiiese definitions especiaUy in the foUowing aspects: smaU
numbers of objects appeared, iUustrating the everyday life of members of individual
occupational groups (for instance forestry and saw-mill workers) and of other social classes
(for instance tiie bourgeoisie). In spite of this intended broaderüng the major part of tiie
museum's holdings still consists of coUections of peasant culture, witnesses to the
everyday Ufe of the peasant population, to Slovene people of an archaic, tiaditional
society. (The Slovene coUections of the ethnographic museum today count over 30,000 objects;
22,904 of them have been inventorised, the others can be traced in the registers of acquisitions.)
The objects in these coUections, the formerly so-caUed "evidence of foUc creativity",
this "inventory of the nation's treasure", have not changed, of course. What has changed
is how tiiey are viewed today. Indeed, they have become bearers of information with
multifold meanings, material witnesses to the everyday Ufe of the peasant population,
telling stories about its creativity, inventiveness, skills, wisdom, ideals of beauty, co-
existence with nature.
Formerly they were aU encompassed by the disputable, but stiU existent concept
of "folk culture". Up to the 1960s the Slovene ethnological discipline considered foUc
culture to be "the peasant culture of the pre-industrial period and the later survivors of
this crüture (definition by Bas, in: Kremenšek, 1983) which is supposed to be an acceptable
term. Later, tiie concept of folk culture became linked with "the culture of the subjected
classes in the period of feudatism" (Kremenšek, 1983), a definition attempting to be more
accurate in the historical and social sense. More recent reflections (Muršič, 1995) hold that
it is not possible to "locate" folk culture "in a concrete time or social space - not even in
tiie pre-industrial period". For tiie ethnological discipUne it is supposed to be a "h-ans-
cendental" category.
The concept "folk" is imdoubtedly disputable from a theoretical point of view,
since it is not defined well enough; on the otiier hand, however, the things themselves,
the museum objects, encompassed by the concept of folk culture are incredibly concrete:
they were made and used especially by the peasant population; most of them are objects
tiiat supply information on manual work and skills passed on (on work processes before
the use of machines and before the industrial revolution); most of them originate from the
19th century, a smaU part from tiie 18th (and, in very few cases, from before the 18th century)
as weU as from tiie 20tii cenhiry. They are often illustrative of cultural elements of "long
standing". Therefore, a more suitable syntagm as far as meaning is concerned would be
traditional culture. The concept "ti-adition " refers to what is past, historical, passed over
from generation to generation, is of "long duration "; furtiiermore, in the past, tiiat is up
to the first decades of tiie 20tii century, tiie majority of Slovenia's population were peasants
(tiiough completely differentiated). The syntagm traditional culture tiierefore encompasses
botii historical and sodal aspects.
Inja Smerdel
While more or less constantly focusing on the collections, the history of the museimi
has seen various definitions of a museum and permanent exhibitions, but only rare
exhibitions of a more permanent nature. The first one to be mentioned is the exhibition
of the collections of the "ethnographic" section of the Camiolian Provincial Museum,
the Rudolfinum, in 1906, displayed in eight showcases, and according to the then
museum's curator Walter Schmid "showing a clear picture of local culture in the Camiolian
province in well thought-out self-contained groups". (Rogelj-Škafar, 1995).
Stanko Vumik, The Royal Ethnographic Museum's curator, planned a permanent
exhibition as a reflection of the goal "to represent the Slovene and Yugoslav population from
the point of view of ethnography, anthropology and folk art" . He envisaged the collections to
be displayed in the future halls according to a clear scheme: six halls for peasant
architecture witii typical interiors of rooms, a "kamra" and kitchens; two halls were to
exhibit furniture and wooden, iron, ceramic and textile peasant crafts; two halls for
agricultural implements and crafts tools; three halls to exhibit costumes and embroideries;
one hall for sculptures and paintings; one hall for folk music; one hall to exhibit customs
and two halls for tiie objects from exotic peoples (Rogelj-Škafar, 1993).
In 1947 tiie Etimographic Museum was allocated tiiree exhibition halls and part of
the ground-floor corridor in the building of the National Museum. The museum's director
Boris Orel wanted fl presentation of the entire Slovene folk culture based on different historical
and developmental views, but in the three mentioned halls this was far from viable. What
was exhibited was an exclusive selection of merely a tenth of the museum's holdings.
The first hall was dedicated to the presentation of a Slovene peasant house, its economy,
household and crafts; the second one displayed Slovene folk costumes, and tiie third
objects of Slovene folk art and customs (Rogelj-Škafar, 1995).
From the mid 1960s onwards the Slovene Ethnographic Museum no longer set up
permanent exhibitions. The last three decades saw various temporary exhibitions that
were all intended to be "basic preparations for the setting up of a permanent collection"
(Kuhar, 1983). Director Boris Kuhar described (in 1983) this (future) permanent exhibition
in tiie following words: "The exhibition, fully in accordance with the principles of modem
museology and with the development of the ethnological discipline at home and abroad,
will present the life of the Slovenes from their settlement up to yesterday or even today. In the
spatial sense it is to include the Slovenes in this country and those on the other side of the
border, emigrants and Slovene guest workers abroad. Thematically, the presentation is to encompass
all classes of the population, social, occupational and other groups in the countryside and in
towns that characterized the national community in individual historical periods." This
description (or definition) which failed to take into account the actual circumstances in
the museum and tiie nature of its collections was based on two then prevailing definitions
of ethnology: that of Slavko Kremenšek which we mentioned above, and that of Angelos
Bas, stating that ethnology "is a discipline studying the way of life, or, more accurately,
the history of the way of Hfe of individual nations (1968). But even Kuhar had his doubts
and tiiey are reflected in the sentence following the above quoted one: "Unfortunately,
available ethnological literature shows great deficits since we have no fundamental works;
there is still a lot of scientific and research work to be done, and the co-operation of other
ethnological institutions and related disciphnes will be necessary."
In the memory of the museum's staff tiie above quoted definition has survived as
"the way of life from tiie Palaeohthic to Tito" and was often adhered to, that is botii
50_
The project called The Slovene Ethnograptuc Museum
methodological approaches were often followed. Cm'ator Irena Keršič, for instarrce, wrote
(in 1983): "The basic task of the Slovene Ethnographic Musemi\ remains to set up a
permanent exhibition on The way of life of the Slovenes through the historical periods up to
the present."
This die-hard declared complexity - the way of hfe of all periods, all classes and
occupational groups - is something we keep on trying to compose from individual things
and is for many reasor\s an unattainable, elusive target. In recent times it has been quite
reahstically assessed as being an "over-dimensioned modernistic goal" (Muršič, 1995).
Rethinking our goals brought the staff of tiie Slovene Ethnographic Museum back
to the essence, to the collections and to the object, and thus over and again to man, about
whom the tilings he wore and which surroimded him can tell us so much. But this does
not mean that we are returning to the objects with the aim of setting up a permanent
exhibition tiiat would be a "museum of objects", but rather to create with them a "museum
of ideas" (Van-Praët), of existence, a museum about people and for people. It is hardly necessary
to emphasize that such an approach to the permanent exhibition takes us far away from
past concepts of a display of the "folk culture of a nation", but also from the unachievable
complexity that stiU Ungered in curator Bojana Rogelj-Skafar's text (1995): "The permanent
exhibition wiU attempt to reveal with its world of objects the characteristic activities that
formed and influenced the way of life, the processes and relationships between and
within the characteristic classes of the Slovene nation in the various periods up to the present."
We cannot escape from the collections of objects, illustrative of traditional culture, of the
everyday Hfe of the primarily peasant population in Slovenia; they are the special featiire
of the Slovene Ethnographic Museimi and are an important part not only of the Slovene
cultural heritage, but also of the European heritage (such as in oüier countries, especially in
France, is marked witii tiie syntagm "peasant civilisation"). Similarly, we cannot escape the
aspects of the exotic and strange that is so expressively present in the non-European
collections. It would therefore make sense to finally rid ourselves of the frustiations
brought about by complex definitions; at least as far as tiie permanent exhibition is
concerned.
The renovated Slovene Ethnographic Museum in the complex of buildings in
Metelkova wiU indeed not be timited to tiie story told by a relatively permanent exhibition.
Temporary exhibitions wiU offer inexhaustible possibitities to treat themes in so many
different ways; tiiey wiU be set up by our own staff, domestic and foreign guest experts;
and they wül deal with Slovene, European and non-European themes. Besides enriching
tiie existing coUections and tiie documentation tiiere is also the need to estabUsh several
new coUections and carry out corresponding research; for instance into a coUection of
objects, witnesses to the everyday life of Slovene emigrants; tiie material on tiie Slovenes
Uving m the neighbouring border areas has to be completed; objects, ülusta-ative of tiie
life of Öie national minorities in Slovenia is stiU scarce; and a coUection of objects Ulustiating
modem mass culture wiU have to be set up. (In modem times mass culhire has become - as
did b-aditional culture in tiie past - Üie cultural image of everyday life of many people, perhaps
even of tiie majority of the Slovene population). What we aim at is a modem European museum
of cultural identities that will be embedded in the national cultural identity with the whole of its
contents. Besides its basic social tasks the museum's primary message wiU be a proud
and dignified love of our own braditional culture, of the heritage handed down to us, of
discovering cultural diversity, co-existence witii differences, tolerance towards foreign
51
Inja Smerdel
nations, minorities and tiie wisdom of Ufe in co-existence witii nature. Reflecting on the
renovated Slovene Etimographic Museimi as a cultural, scientific and educational institution
I therefore imagine a comprehensive ethnological and anthropological museum that to the
visitor will present a link between past and present, between traditional and modern culture,
between nature and civilisation, between our culture and other ones, between man and the
image about man we create artificially, though with objects that are genuine.
THE ROAD TO THE PERMANENT EXHIBITION
In the Slovene Ethnographic Museum we started working on the permanent
exhibition in the spring of 1995. At tiiat time it was no longer unrealistic to imagine the
new premises of the future museum to become a fact, hdtial discussions looked into
possible approaches to the exhibition, for instance whether to involve collaborators from
other ethnological institutions from the beginning or at a later stage, and into the
assignments of groups and individuals. Towards the end of spring we submitted to the
Ministry of Science and Technology a three-year applied research project in the field of
conservation of tiie natural and cultural heritage, entitled "The permanent exhibition in
the Slovene Etimographic Museum." The project has been running since January 1996.
As part of it a selection of texts will be written for the exhibition that will provide basic
explanations, point out cormections and offer additional information (legends, the texts of
brochures and a guide to the exhibition); tiie project further includes elaboration of the
exhibitions museological aspects (museography, micro-climate, lighting) and of the adult-
education section.
In the autumn months of 1995 we reached the decision that the concept of tiie per-
manent exhibition's contents was to be elaborated in tiie museum itself, that is by the
curators and ethnologists who combine a museological and ethnological scientific approach
with thorough knowledge of the basic material for the exhibition - the collections of objects.
At a later stage, the chosen project for the exhibition would be submitted to others, yet not
only to ethnologists, but especially to a broader public, that of tiie museum's visitors.
The need for an efficient division of labour witiiin the group of museum curators
and tiie decision that the initial concepts should be tiie fruit of individual planning,
resulted in Gora/d Makarovič, Andrej Dular in Janja Žagar being asked to elaborate
their visions of the permanent exhibition. In the spring of 1996 we were already able to
read their first concepts of the permanent exhibition and add our written or oral comments
and suggestions.
Makarovič proposed to set up an exhibition divided into four themes: 1. Space,
time and society - orientation background; 2. Resources and ways of making a living
(agriculture, cattle breeding, hunting, gathering, crafts..); 3. Consumption (food, clothes, housing);
and 4. The attitude to the world (beliefs, customs, arts, science, skills). The first theme would
be infroductory, and the other three based "on a view 'from below', on aspects and
attitudes to reahty as tiiey are formed by a population that has to survive, consume and
achieve self-realisation". The exhibition would be based - wherever possible - on historical
and developmental aspects witii special emphasis on tiie period from the mid 18th century
onwards. Makarovic's breakdown of the tiiree basic units into samples of individual
subchapters pointed out that the permanent exhibition would have a distinctiy scientific
character.
52
_The project called The Slovene Ethnographic Museum_
53^
Dular's project envisaged three main muts: 1. General items, 2. Life stories, and 3.
The Slovenes and the World. The first imit would present the basic data on the Slovenes
as a nation (settlement, historical development, geographically relevant data..), and develop
from the general to the individual, ending with illustrations of psycho-physical
characteristics of tiie Slovenes and with a fictional individual who would inh-oduce tiie
unit Life stories. This second unit would run on two levels of narration, witii tiie first
one to be life customs from birth to death, in which man's life would be set in a
personahsed context of time, and, as a second level that of calendar or yearly customs,
where man's Ufe would be set in a wider, general context of society and period. The
third unit, The Slovenes and the World, would develop from tiie individual to tiie general
and present the connections of tiie Slovenes with Europe and tiie rest of tiie world.
Major accents wordd be on presenting tiie knowledge and discovery of foreign cititures
and on Slovene emigrants.
Both Dular's and Makarovic's concepts envisaged tiie permanent exhibition to
have a uniform form, structured into tiie above mentioned imits. Janja Zagar's concept
foresaw a division into two basic exhibition forms (out of tiie three advocated by a weU-
known division and generally caUed tiie educational, culhiral and scientific approaches, based on
whether the exhibition is intended primarily for children, the general public or experts; Desvallées,
1976). The two approaches chosen by Žagar were a so-caUed cultiiral exhibition, intended
for the general public and entitled Images of a culture or Objects about people; and,
secondly, that of a scientific exhibition entitied Study CoUections or Objects about
themselves. The first approach envisaged an introductory part, "orientafion outline of a
culture" (geography-history and history-society), foUowed by a display that would offer "to
the visitor various ways of receiving the imparted information", that is in the form of
"the life story of an individual and his social roles" (which in accordance witii his age "widen"
or "narrow"); in the form of "widening" and "cyclical repetition" (as reflected on the levels of
man, society, other dimensions, nature, work); and in the form of a survey of an average
inventory of objects (tools, funüshings, clotiies), jobs and relationships between people. (The
concept as a whole and the chosen section of its scenario are presented in a separate article).
Žagar also wrote that it appeared to her that, "if we ignore geographically specific
conditions and objects and at the same fime keep in mind tiie actual composition of the
museum's coUections, the most appropriate and best Ulustrated (by objects) conditions
to feature in the exhibition are those from cential Slovenia in the mid 19th century". The
exhibition would tiierefore start around 1830 or 40 and end witii first decades of he 20th
century. As to the second form of exhibition, Žagar imagined a presentation of tiie Slovene
Ethnographic Museum's coUections, largely in accordance with asserted ethnological
systematics. The emphasis here would be on the object because of its "form, making and
partly also use", that is tiie technological aspect and the exhibition would Ulustrate "the
context of the objects' development in time and place".
A division into two basic forms of exhibition had been on our minds for some time
aheady, under the impression of the so-caUed "ATP style" (ATP: Arts et traditions
popidaires), tiie type of presentation elaborated primarUy by Georges Henri Riviere and
reaUsed in the form of the Study and Cultural GaUeries in the Paris Musée des arts et
traditions populaires (Desvallées, 1976). In the period of intensive tiivolvement in
elaborating concepts for the exhibition we broadened our knowledge through comparative
reading of gvtides to permanent exhibitions in existing ethnographic musermis, studying
other sources (for instance, critical assessments of the relatively outdated installation in the
Inja Smerdel
54
ATP), and by visiting some recent relevant exhibitions in Europe (for instance, the
conceptually original, but visually not quite sufficiently informative exhibition set up in 1994 in
Vienna's Österreichisches Museum für Volkskunde, and the rather classical set-up in Budapest's
Néprajzi museum from the early 1990s). Nevertheless, we kept returning to the above
mentioned "ATP style", though primarily because of its basic idea - that it is most
appropriate to have two or three forms of exhibition (Riviere indeed plaimed a third,
educational gallery, intended exclusively for children; Desvallées, 1976.)
In spring, Janja Zagar's concept was chosen as the basic concept for the permanent
exhibition of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. In the course of the further organisation
of work Žagar was assigned the responsibility of final design of the scenario entitled
Images of a culture or Objects about people, to present traditional culture, "its changes
and novelties", through the story of the life of a fictional individual or couple of
. individuals. Andrej Ehilar was made responsible for the design of the scenario of the
study exhibition of the collections and Gorazd Makarovič for conceiving the exhibition's
introductory story, "orientation outline of a culture" or "the basic backgroimd of the
Slovene ethnos". Sonja Kogej-Rus had already earher started to devote herself to the
general and adult education aspects of the permanent exhibition, and in mid 1996 Marjeta
Mikuž was assigned the execution of a research of potential visitors of tiie Slovene
Ethnographic Museum and what they expected from the permanent exhibition.
Consultations with outside co-operator Borut Rovšnik, museologist of the Mimicipal
Museum of Ljubljana, led to the elaboration of a questionnaire tiiat will be used for a
trial survey in January 1997. It will then be re-edited and used on a sample of approxi-
mately 600 people in February 1997.
Visitors are a museum's active fellow-travellers and we therefore intend (after
carrying out the survey) to engage them even more intensively in the concept of the
permanent exhibition by setting up a trial exhibition, during which a so-called formative
or design research (see Van-Praët) will be carried out. Two sections of the envisaged whole,
based on the scenarios of the exhibitions' story and on the study collections will be
exhibited from Jime 1997 onwards in the first museum building in the complex of
buildings in Metelkova. They will be designed in a way that tiiey can be rearranged,
following analysis of tiie response of different groups of visitors and their opinions. We
expect the two, the preparation and the design research, as well as the results of the
discussions with a mmiber of etimologists tiiat will take place during tiie trial exhibition,
to help us define the final scenario of the permanent exhibition. We indeed sincerely
hope that the permanent exhibition wiU be warmly welcomed by a wide range of museimi
visitors and that it will attract numerous new ones.
This article, "The project, called the Slovene Etimographic Museimi", to which the
final concepts of Janja Žagar in Andrej Dular are added in separate articles, concludes
witii a fictional visit to the (future) museum and a stroll through its permanent exhibition;
though fictional it attempts to summarise some of the findings and discussions, visits to
museums and a wealth of ideas, bom in the past months.
After returning fl-om a journey I try to get in tune with Ljubljana's everyday life by
working my way through a pile of newspapers, and notice among numerous other announcements
something I have been looking out for for a long time: the Slovene Ethnographic Museum has
finally opened its permanent exhibition on the new premises! I am so curious 1 get to my feet
_The project called The Slovene Ethnographic Museum_
55
right away. In recent years, that is since the museum moved into the first of two buildings in
Metelkova, I have frequented it with delight because of its pleasant ambience, the small exhibitions
here and there, the lively lectures, ethnological films, presentations of books, chamber music
events, and creative museum workshops. Like the other regular visitors I oflen glanced, full of
expectation and impatience, at the other, larger building that was being turned - as we gathered
from the projects - into an interesting exhibition hall. And now its has finally opened its doors.
There is not much time today but I decide to take my youngest, eight-year old son to the
museum. I at least want to get a first impression of the new permanent exhibition.
The museum's spacious entrance hall with its high ceiling is the first pleasant surprise. It
breathes warmth because of the natural materials it is furnished with, and its design, though
modern, floods the visitor with the spirit of the museum's contents. The entrance tickets, too, are
designed in the same spirit and we decide to keep them as souvenirs of our first visit. To the lefi
there is a charming museum shop and I know I won't be able to leave the museum without
visiting it. The hall is swarming with people: some are sitting about, others heading towards the
staircase or towards the ground-floor halls to see the temporary exhibitions or, in the opposite
direction, to pay a visit to the master craftsmen in the museum's workshops, while some are
descending in a glass lift. It takes us just another instant to notice the distinct and easily
comprehensible plan of the museum and a lay-out of the permanent exhibition.
The layout indicates that the permanent installation consists of several units, each
of them a self-contained exhibition that can be visited separately or in the proposed
order. The titles of the individual exhibition units are genial, plain bearers of ideas, but nevertheless
somewhat enigmatic, inviting people to find out what contents are hidden behind the following
words:
1. Images of the past - "The night of time"
2. A story of survival and affluence - The counter-point of life
3. The orderly world of objects - "Encyclopaedia of things"
4. Ethno-ABC
5. The pick of the bunch
- Čupa (chupa) the longest museum object in one piece
- Čanca, (chantsa) the museum's most bizarre and mysterious object
After climbing the stairs to the first ftoor we find ourselves at the beginning of the tour,
the entrance to the cinema. Everywhere around there are posters announcing a thrilling historical
movie entitled "The night of time". Shall we start here? A custodian in uniform checks our
tickets and ushers us into the dark room where we are soon captured by a remarkable film, a
combination of real images and animation, that guides us - in the form of a story told by an
individual person about the life of our predecessors - through the Slovene territory, its economic
and social history, the development of individual cultural elements from the settlement to the
first decades of tiie I9th century. It is only when the film ends that 1 become aware how elegantly
this familiar medium and its moving pictures have taken us from the everyday life of the 20th
century to past times and life stories. This is how we experienced the museum's "rite of
passage" without pain and we are now prepared to enter the first exhibition hall, the beginning
of the Story of survival and affluence. Leaving the cinema we notice a highlighted time line
along the corridor's left wall, featuring texts and illustration that in another visual way provide
the same essential information as the film and is intended for those visitors who prefer to go
directly to the exhibition halls without seeing the film. We are glad we have decided to see it -
Inja Smerdel
surprised by this kind of introduction to seeing the permanent exhibition and by the amicable
custodian - and are absorbed by the cinema's mellow atmosphere and the introductory story/'The
night of time".
Entering "The counter-point of life" or "A story of survival and affluence", our
first encounter is with people, that is with a fictional man and woman, individuals showing the
physical, anthropological and character features of the Slovenes attributed to them by Valvasor,
Hacquet and Linhart. The room and the presentation in it make us feel as if caught between the
walls of a womb. In the next hall we are welcomed by two peasant homes on a spring morning:
that of a wealthy farmer and that of a crofier. From here on scenes take us through the life of a
fictional boy and girl, later man and wife, from the 1830s to the eve of the Second World War;
through the calendar year from spring to winter, from morning to night, birth to death; in the
family, home, courtyard, outbuildings, and at work; in gatherings of the village community on
- the occasion of the parish fair, the Shrovetide festival and a wedding; further afield with the
couple on their way to the town and the market, or on a pilgrimage; through their encounters
with secular and ecclesiastical authorities; their leaving the homeland and meeting foreign
cultures. We walk in their footsteps in other dimensions too: in their reminiscences, handing on
of skills, telling stories, recounting historical events or travelling adventures.
1 am quite surprised by the imagination behind the exhibition. Even in the middle of the
exhibition one is constantly aware of being in an ethnological museum; one enters the
flow of life and through it follows man, communicated through objects that set out his
social environment, the period and place he lived in. Here and there man is present visually too,
though not as a realistic puppet. How grateful 1 am that they managed to do without such
puppets. Here such exaggerated scenic flirting with reality has been avoided. Real environments
are shown, presented on a symbolic level, but nevertheless recognisable beyond any
doubt. With the exhibition, this autonomous medium, a new reality lias been created, albeit that
of a museum; in a gentle way it brings the visitor closer to the life in the past it recounts with
objects and other sources.
The exhibition is also set up to emphasize the interplay of the opposites between
survival and affluence, indicated by the title of this unit of the permanent exhibition; and
its other special feature is that it forces us to reflect on the unit's basic idea - the
cyclical nature of life. We work from Saturday to Saturday, as soon as one summer is over we
long for the next, we progress from one Christmas to the next. I become aware how familiar this
roundabout presented by the exhibition's message is. And so is the expansion: from the micro-
level at home to journeying into the vast realms of foreign and distant worlds. This part of the
exhibition has another surprise for me. Encounters with non-European cultures are presented
through illustrations of the Slovenes' ideas about the inhabitants of foreign countries
and their life (for instance among emigrants from Primorska it was held that in Brazil boules is played
with oranges); the illustrations are confronted with concrete material that informs us
about aspects from real life in some of these countries.
I am so wrapped up in thoughts it takes some time before I notice that my son is no longer
with me. I find him on his way from one of the moderate number of touch screens that provide
additional information to a group of children in the middle of the hall who are eagerly trying out
a replica of an implement, aided by a museum pedagogue. I remember how we followed the texts
and graphic supplements that unobtrusively accompany the leading legends, setting
individual contents in their historical context and providing social and regional
comparisons. I like the museum's attitude to its visitors. They can experience the exhibition by
56
The project called The Slovene Ethnographic Museum
merely strolling through it, but it is only if they engage in discovering that they will get better
informed. If a visitor wants more knowledge about certain objects or cultural elements
he is referred to "The orderly world of objects" or the "Encyclopaedia of things".
Today there is just time enough for the two of us to walk through this part of the
exhibition. Though we do not manage more than a random viewing, we leave the exhibition
impressed by the enchanting variety of exhibits, the wealth of forms, patterns, functions and
skills to which I am certain to return on my own. My son darts into the Ethno-ABC, a name
behind which he correctly imagines a very special exhibition, reserved to children. It is
located on the third upper floor between the study exhibitions of the Slovene and the
other, especially non-European Orderly world of objects.
The room buzzes with excitement. Under every letter of the alphabet individual objects
are exhibited - like museum seed - and next to them on a platform and on shelves an almost
endless variety of new things, brought and arranged by the children themselves. We have come ^
to the Ethno-ABCs "Young gatherers' day". They have brought objects from everywhere: villages,
towns and even foreign countries. The children are assisted by museum curators who help to
arrange the cardfiles, enter data into the computer. My son whispers in my ear that next time
he'll bring his own contribution to the alphabet. Then we notice that every letter is accompanied
by a multitude of drawers and small doors. My inquisitive companion starts pulling them out
and is surprised to discover that some of them hide small objects, others only photographs or
drawings of objects with their names, basic data and tips to where more about them can be
learned in the museum. Some drawers contain only words: for instance under the letter P there
is the word potterer and the tip to see the master potterer in the workshop on the groundfioor.
My son can hardly stop his discovery tour. He drags me to the letter Č and we open the drawer
that contains photographs of a čupa and a čanca, the objects we remember the scheme of the
permanent exhibition mentions as the Pick of the bunch. The instructions hidden in the drawer
tells us in which part of the exhibition we can find them. Though Vm fully enjoying the museum
I had not planned to spend so much time here and I try to convince my son that we should
reserve the Pick of the bunch for our next visit. In vain, of course: čupa and čanca are much
too exciting words and he must see these things.
Our encounter with the čupa submerged in the blueness of the exhibition hall's modem
design is quite thrilling: we catch sight of an enormous, seven-meter-long dug-out of the kind
Slovene fishermen from the villages between Trieste and the Timava used to go out to sea in. My
son has hundreds of questions and I'm grateful that the exhibition quite succeeds in answering them.
Then we meet the other object that is part of the pick of the bunch - čanca. The quivering
twilight in the room conjures up the feeling of a tropical rain-forest, an ambience befitting this
indeed most unusual and mysterious object: a trophy made of a human head with hair still
attached, artificially shrunken to the size of an apple. Its magic story outlines moments from the
life of the South-American Jivaros.
We leave the Pick of the bunch in total amazement. The way these two objects are
exhibited will certainly implant them in our memories. They make me realize how attractive
exceptional objects can be for visitors. Sometimes they are the only thing a person associates
with visiting a certain museum. As children we remembered the Museum of Natural Science as
the one with the mammoth, and yet there are so many other interesting things there.
The Slovene Ethnographic Museum will remain in our memory not only because of the
čupa and čanca, but as a museum we found it hard to leave. There was not enough time but we
managed to make the most of our long walk through the museum. Now we can afford to enjoy
57
Inja Smerdel
58
the pleasant impression and, carrying a folder with brochures, find ourselves a pair of seats in
the garden of the museum coffee shop, in the shadow of two centenarian planes.
Translated by Franc Smrke
SOURCES AND LITERATURE see pages 37-39.
BESEDA O AVTORICI
Inja Smerdel, mag., etnologinja, od julija .
1995 direktorica Slovenskega etnografskega
muzeja, je bila pred tem kustodinja za ruralno
gospodarstvo v Slovenskem etnografskem mu-
zeju (od leta 1980) in glavna urednica znanst-
vene publikacije Etnolog (1991 - 95).
Po preučevanju nekaterih pojavov urno- '
žične kulture (stenskega okrasja in godbe na I
pihala) se je v preteklem desetletju in pol posve- i
čala zlasti raziskovanju različnih gospodarsko i
kulturnih prvin: soseskine gospodarske samo- j
uprave, del ob spravilu žitnega pridelka, ov-,
čarstva s selitveno pašo, ptičjega lova, nazadnje
oselnikov in košnje.
Med objavljenimi razpravami in članki, ,
izmed katerih jih nekaj izpričuje tudi njene
muzeološke poglede, sta pomembnejši deli:
Ovčarstvo na Pivki, Transhumanca od srede 19. do I
srede 20. stoletja ali Trije "ovčarji" (Koper, 1989) !
in Oselniki: zbirka SEM (Ljubljana, 1994).       ,|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Inja Smerdel, M.A., ethnologist and
director of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum
since July 1995. Prior to her appointment as
director she was curator of rural economy in the
museum (since 1980) and chief editor of the
scientific periodical Etnolog (1991-1995).
After initial studies of mass-culture
phenomena (wall decorations and brass bands)
her research efforts of the past fifteen years
concentrated on the cultural elements of econo-
mic activities: economic self-management of a
village, harvesting jobs, sheep-farming and
transhumance, bird-catching, and, most recent-
ly, whetstone holders and the hay harvest.
Noticeable among her treatises and
articles, some of which also reveal her views on
museum issues, are Sheep-farming in Pivka,
Transhumance from the Middle ofl 9th to the Middle
of 20th Century or The Three "Sheepmasters"
(Koper, 1989) and Whetstone Holders, published
in the series of SEM (Ljubljana, 1994).