The announcement of the creation of a future National Museum of the History of Quebec (MNHQ), to make up for, at least in the capital, the failure of the Blue Spaces network, has caused a lot of reaction. Among those who make museums their specialty, initially. Also within the First Nations Education Council. A brief overview of what is emerging as a potential collision between the different desires of politicians, communities and museum people.
“Is it a bad idea to have a National History Museum? Absolutely not,” summarizes Jean-François Leclerc, former director of the Montreal History Center (since renamed MEM — Center of Montreal Memories). “But the way of doing things is something else…”
What is this way? Already, announcing “the creation of a new national museum without prior consultation with the community is curious,” believes the holder of the Research Chair on Museum Governance and Cultural Law at UQAM, Yves Bergeron.
The First Nations Education Council (FNEC) also deplored the lack of consultation, this time with the latter. He also denounced on Friday the vision of Quebec history promoted by Mr. Legault, who said at the launch “that it is important to start with Champlain, at the very beginning”, “passing over in silence the historical presence of our peoples on the territory”.
“We have been here for a long time and we are proud of it,” commented CEPN general director Denis Gros-Louis. We are part of the past, certainly, but to believe that the history of the Quebec territory only begins with the arrival of Samuel de Champlain is inaccurate. »
“I extend my hand to Premier Legault and the new MNHQ team so that the population can understand the importance that we have and continue to have in the development of Quebec and the First Nations,” continues Mr. Gros-Louis.
The Minister of Culture, Mathieu Lacombe, reacted to these criticisms on Tuesday. “It is a museum on the history of our nation, the Quebec nation. We are very respectful of the history of the First Nations. We are different nations and we work from nation to nation. They themselves tell us that they want this posture, continued the minister. I think it’s important to work with [les Premières Nations], but that does not prevent us from having a museum on our nation, our Quebec nation. »
Think about our history together?
This lack of consultation certainly does not help to rally players from the museum sector around a project which also announces potential future competitions between institutions, for butter and butter.
Indeed, the main challenge for a national museum is its financing, recalls Jean-François Leclerc. “Do we understand the ecosystem of Quebec museums where we want this MNHQ to be part of? asks the history and museology consultant. Where are the museums in the territory that allow us to understand history? How will management and financing be structured? Are we going to have to take it from other museums, elsewhere? We feel that we have not focused on these questions…”
Questions that arise at a time when a portrait of the difficult financial conditions in which Quebec museums and their artisans work is revealed.
The specialists, we understand between the lines, also feel excluded from this rare and essential reflection on the creation of a national museum. Could the fact that François Legault choose the historian Éric Bédard as consultant and scientific authority also have been annoying?
“Historians are not in the best position to think about a museum,” says Mr. Leclerc. It will take a committee to develop a vision, add independent museologists and creatives from various disciplines and arts. » This will be the team from the Musée de la civilization (MCQ).
All the people interviewed by The duty They also say they are worried about the enormous pressure, also financial, that this mission places on the MCQ. While reiterating their great confidence in its team, its specialists and its scientists.
State privilege
François Legault’s repeated propensity to want to provoke pride among Quebecers, even through a museum project, also becomes an irritant for specialists. Is there not a danger of exploiting the museum and culture?
As Mr. Legault describes it, “the MHNQ looks more like a pantheon, a place of commemoration dedicated to people, rather than a history museum,” says Yves Bergeron.
The MHNQ seems to be inspired by the model of the Smithsonian Institution, which manages the National Museum of American History in Washington, continues the museologist. “It’s a clearly patriotic museum. It is a societal choice and the privilege of a State to determine the mission of national museums. But in these ideas there is an activated confusion between commemoration and history,” believes Mr. Bergeron.
Retired museology professor Philippe Dubé reacted in our pages by comparing the idea to “ fake museums “. “A state museum, because it is national, can only be defined by simply wearing a halo of pride to arouse admiration to the point of swooning. »
Historians and museologists from several universities also met in The Press to say that, according to them, “the development of a “unifying”, watered-down narrative aimed at arousing national pride would represent a missed opportunity to seize the potential of history to develop critical thinking”.
Once upon a time there was a story, a museum
In interview at Duty, Éric Bédard himself tempered the impulses of François Legault. “I want to say that a museum is first and foremost to discover, to learn, to transmit something. It is from this perspective that I wanted to embark on this adventure. »
Jean-François Leclerc, for his part, takes the words of the announcement with a grain of salt. “Mr. Legault, as we know, does not have a very deep view of culture. It’s a curious and interested look, he explains. The story, the content that you would find in a museum, that’s really not the way to start. It is the soul of a museum, but we must first know how it will be embodied. »
By what values, what ethics, what means of mediation, continues Jean-François Leclerc, what collections, too? — this part, at least, is resolved: it will be that of the MCQ, which will become shared. “It’s certain that political discourse is always simplistic,” recalls the former member of the Montreal History Center. But this museum is an opportunity that must be seized. »
This is also what museologist John Porter believes. “This debate is, in my opinion, the best chance to raise the question of laws on museums,” he believes, clarifying the mandates of each of the state museums, namely the Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, the National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec and the MCQ, to eliminate ambiguities.
“Currently, if a painting by Pierre Gauvreau (1922-2011) finds itself on sale, it is likely to be acquired by the National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec, by the Museum of Contemporary Art or by the MCQ,” illustrates Mr. Porter. A clearer sharing of cultural territories would avoid overlaps and then even allow better exchanges.
“We could think of the construction of an exemplary network, of a renaissance for regional museums which would be based on a core of clearly defined state museums. But for that, it takes a global vision,” imagines John Porter, and a detailed understanding of museums.
With Alexandre Robillard