Tartu University Library as a Medium between Different Patrons

Lepik, Krista

doi:10.1142/9789814299701_0019

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Museologist Nina Simon (2010), citing Clay Shirky (2008), sees social conditions as motivating factors for participation coming from the institution's clear and open expressions of promise, tools and bargain, and where participants would like to see their contributions are integrated in a timely, attractive, and respectful way. In the context of memory institutions, Krista Lepik (2013) has been mapping the preconditions of participation and argues the importance of capitals (financial, social, educational, political and cultural), information literacy and social identity.…”

Section: Theoretical Considerations When Mapping the Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivations for participating in museums’ interventions

Aljas¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The article examines what motivates people to participate in a cultural institution's participatory interventions. In recent decades, the changing roles of cultural institutions and the concepts of defining museum audiences are brought together in the case study of the Estonian National Museum's participatory interventions. This paper indicates that motivations for participation are emotional and personal, that social goals are often overestimated, but the wish to cooperate and gain recognition from institutions have often been underestimated as motivators. The museum's roles to support intercultural dialogue and facilitate diverse views were not supported by the participational interventions. Analysis indicated that being a participant does not make people more critical or dialogical in a museum context, as the topics the participants chose to be involved with are appropriate to their own experiences, contexts and assumptions. CHanGinG roLes of MUseUMsThe modern cultural and institutional roles of museums are characterized by the complexity of the relations, pressures and goals surrounding them. Museums can be described as: temples of civilization, sites for the creation of citizens, forums of debate, settings for cultural interchange and negotiation of values, engines of economic renewal and revenue generation, imposed colonialist enterprises, havens of elitist distinction and discrimination, or places of empowerment and recognition etc (Kratz & Karp, 2006: 1-4). All of which generate new circumstances and opportunities of development.In order to examine the multiple roles of a museum, I selected the six most prominent topics in modern museum discourse: 1) Museums are governmental, collective and educative. The view that heritage is a valuable source of meaning making, a collective representation of tradition and ideals, which is closely connected to informal public education and guided by official cultural policy (for example Hall, 2005; Bennett, 2006: 59).2) Heritage as facilitator. The idea that the museum is in control of 'facilitating the world to people' , where heritage and tradition are envisaged as a social glue that might be used to stick together disparate bits of society and to attach those sectors that seem to have become detached (Macdonald, 2008;Ciolfi, 2012).3) Heritage's importance to cultural tourism and economy. In the contexts of the creative industry and cultural tourism, there are successful sectors amongst which heritage-related activities have considerable economic importance (Menger, 2010; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 2006). 4) Global and technological change. Museums are elements of globalized flows of information, people and ideas; they reach beyond their spaces and national boundaries through the Internet. Technology has caused changes in the notions of objects and exhibitions, and placed the concepts of real and original artefacts on the public agenda (Ross, 2010).5) Issues of expertise. Digitalised collections have made museum collections more open, more visible and more used ...

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Considerations When Mapping the Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivations for participating in museums’ interventions

Aljas¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mütoloogilised kirjeldused on metatekstid, kus kirjeldatav objekt ja kirjeldav metatekst kuuluvad ühte ja samasse keelde (Lotman, Uspenski 1999[1973: 187-188). Lotman ja Uspenski vastandavad selliseid tekste mittemütoloogilistele ehk deskriptiivsetele kirjeldustele, mis toimivad metakeelena ehk objekttasandist erineva süsteemina, ja järeldavad, et kui deskriptiivseid kirjeldusi mõistetakse ühest keelest teise tõlkimise kaudu, siis mütoloogiliste kirjelduste vahendusel saavutatakse mõistmine ära-1 Kuigi Lotman ei kasuta mõistet mütoloogiline modelleerimine, on ta oma tekstides kirjeldanud müütilisel mõtlemisel põhinevate semiootiliste mudelite eripärasid (vt Lotman 2000(vt Lotman [1990; Lotman, Mints 2016[1981; Lotman, Uspenski 1999[1973[1971; vt ka Lepik 2007), mis käesolevas artiklis on koondatud ühtse nimetaja alla. Samuti on oluline välja tuua, et artiklis "Kunst modelleerivate süsteemide reas" (Lotman [1967) kirjeldab Lotman peale teadusliku ja mängulise modelleerimise ka kunstilist modelleerimist, mis struktuurilt vastab mängulisele modelleerimisele, kuna mõlemat tüüpi mudelite domineerivaks tunnuseks on mitmetähenduslikkuse võimaldamine (Lepik 2007: 176).…”

Section: Modelleerimine Humanitaarharidusesunclassified

Digitaalne lugemine ja humanitaarharidus

Ojamaa¹,

Тороп²,

Fadeev³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lotman quickly became the leading force of Soviet literary structuralism. " About Lotman, there exist several monographic works (Shukman 1977;Segre 1997;Egorov 1999;Arán, Barei 2002;Andrews 2003a, Soo-Hwan 2003Lepik 2008) and collections of papers (Kantor 2009).…”

Section: Juri Lotmanmentioning

confidence: 99%

The institution of semiotics in Estonia

Kull¹,

Salupere²,

Тороп³

et al. 2011

SSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article gives a historical overview of the institutional development of semiotics in Estonia during two centuries, and describes briefly its current status. The key characteristics of semiotics in Estonia include: (1) seminal role of two world-level classics of semiotics from the University of Tartu, Juri Lotman and Jakob von Uexküll; (2) the impact of Tartu–Moscow school of semiotics, with a series of summer schools in Kääriku in 1960s and the establishment of semiotic study of culture; (3) the publication of the international journal Sign Systems Studies, since 1964; (4) the development of biosemiotics, notably together with colleagues from Copenhagen; (5) teaching semiotics as a major in bachelor, master, and doctoral programs in the University of Tartu, since 1994; (6) a plurality of institutions — in addition to the Department of Semiotics in the University of Tartu, several supporting semiotic institutions have been established since 1990s; and (7) a wide scope of research in various branches of semiotics, including theoretical studies, empirical studies, and applied semiotics projects on governmental and other request.

show abstract

Tartu University Library as a Medium between Different Patrons

Cited by 4 publications

References 5 publications

Motivations for participating in museums’ interventions

Motivations for participating in museums’ interventions

Digitaalne lugemine ja humanitaarharidus

The institution of semiotics in Estonia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About