Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12


Ljiljana GAVRILOVI] Ethnographic Institute, SASA Serbia

UDK 903.2 632/638 (497.11)


Abstract. With the age of information, museums, along with all other types of information, have
gradually moved from a real into a virtual cyber-space, requiring a total re-conceptualization of their work. On the other hand, the concept of total heritage preservation and protection, though in theory constructive, practically presumes that large segments of the heritage (out of various reasons) either cannot be kept in or, especially, linked to museums. Thus, the very concept of heritage preservation has helped construct an image of culture far removed from reality and, therefore, virtual. Cyber-museology should provide a new concept of preservation and presentation of heritage that will allow the establishment of a cultures general image, regardless of whether a real museum, with real objects exists or not. This concept should represent an image that a potential visitor would like to see, and not, as it used to be, one developed by a curator or the exhibitions author. The interlinking of the concepts of cyber museums and heritage could ensure both the realization of the idea of heritage protection and its accessibility to users.

The information revolution and the transition into the post-industrial and digital era have brought about enormous yet still unobservable changes to all spheres of human life. All kinds of information are being transmitted/transferred from real to virtual cyber-space, becoming readily accessible to a large number of potential users, more than ever before.1 These changes have brought about a phase of total de-elitization in access to knowledge, which started during the modern era. Along with all other means of information, museums have gradually transferred to cyber-space, which has required their total re-conceptualization. However, if we carefully examine the functioning of traditional museums and the traditionally understood concept of heritage, we will be able to see that, for most museum workers, this new moment of transferring information from

* This paper is the result of research on project no. 147021: Anthropological Research on Communications in Contemporary Serbia, financed by MNZZS PS. 1) In the English language, the term space can mean both space and the universe, cosmos, in addition to having some other meanings as well. Cyber space could be best described as numerous new technologies used by various people at various different locations (Miller and Slater); it could be seen as a culture by itself, a segment of the general all-encompassing culture, therefore, a fact of culture, or one having a complex relationship with real off-line culture/life (Hine 1998).



real into cyber-space has not represented a substantial change. In fact, the base for the representation of reality/actuality has remained the same, though broadened with new, previously unavailable possibilities, offering the potential resolution of a number of dilemmas associated with classical museum work. An undoubted change lies in the enhanced accessibility of the information offered by the museum, and numerous possibilities for new means of communication with the potential museum audience, as well as a release from the restriction of telling the same story over and over gain (Gavrilovi} 2006).


[ola (2002:156159) relies on the traditional image of museums as clusters of physical/material objects that serve to represent a given culture. He divides digital heritage, based on its physical existence, into virtual and cyber museums/institutions. If there is a real museum, as a physical collection of objects, its online version would be a virtual museum, while cyber-museums have no corresponding version in the physical world. This categorization is problematic for at least two reasons: 1. The museum is by itself a virtual entity. It is a human-created, constructed space (physical, cultural and perceptional) where some objects are purposely chosen and separated from their cultural or natural environment in order to be presented to the public as cultural markers. Thus, a museum is totally artificial (Delo{ 2006). If we are to accept [olas definition and categorization, a virtual museum would be, as an online version of something that is virtual by itself, a double virtualization of reality (however we define it), which of course, does not correspond to the facts; and 2. There is no possibility whatsoever of forming a cyber-museum as something that does not correspond to something in physical reality. Namely, all objects that would find their place in such a museum actually exists somewhere; they are not placed in the same physical space, but that doesnt diminish the possibility of their mutual co-existence in the same/joint perceptional space. This refers not only to objects existing only in digital form drawings, photographs, digital arts, web locations and so on because they, too, share the same perceptual space with objects from the physical/real world. Thus, a museum existing only in cyber space with only digital objects would have the same characteristics as any other.


From the start, museums have been conceived as bases of data2 about general or particular segments of culture.3 Similar to other data bases, museums were created to emphasize certain elements of their contents, by choosing some elements over others. Contrary to other data bases, the choice of museum objects is founded on value appraisals/estimations: all objects chosen to be presented in one museum are considered more valuable than the others left out of the museum framework.

2) A data base is a collection of individual things (data, objects) that are not or do not have to be related but theoretically have the same value. Britannica Online, database, http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9362288; Wikipedia, s.v. database, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database. 3) This refers also to natural science museums, which do not speak about nature as such, but about the relationship between the culture that has formed the museum and the presented nature i.e., what it is from nature that is of interest to the culture, and in what way.



At present, the existing concept of heritage protection (which should be far broader and all-encompassing than the concept of the museum) is also virtual and based on choosing some objects over others (or behaviors, knowledge, beliefs, etc.), which are given greater value and, therefore, a basis for their preservation and protection. In this way, a given cultural environment is segmented and placed in value categories, where some segments are given high values while others are neglected. In this manner, museum activities and the concept of heritage protection divide the general cultural space into valued:: not valued=entering:: not entering categories of museums/heritage Therefore, museums and protected heritage should not be treated as a general cultural image (which they should be, by definition), but only as one of many possible images of a given culture, which has produced the objects and formed the museum/protected the heritage. The twofold molding of a given culture representation is not affected by the objects themselves (knowledge, beliefs, etc.), by whether or not they originated from a culture defined as foreign/alien/theirs or ours, i.e., whether or not these objects are supposed to describe others or us, since, in both cases, museum workers, professionals (judges in the sense that they have to choose some objects over others) actively participate in the creation of a cultural image (them/us), as well as in the creation of the message sent to museum users. The category of valued is further divided, by exhibition politics, into more:: less valued=exposed:: not exposed because, for the most part, museum objects in museum funds never actually see the light of day they are never shown to the public. At the same time, they are categorized as valuable enough to be used in scientific or professional research, but still not attractive enough to be shown to museum visitors. The current concepts of museum and heritage exclude, in this way, large segments of existing culture that are not considered sufficiently worthy to be shown/kept, thus relegating them to oblivion.


A careful examination of museum practice and theory (and heritage preservation) and the criteria used to segment reality/culture, indicates an influence of the current political paradigm. ICOMs definition of non-material heritage, for example, is based on international legal acts on human rights and mutual respect among communities (Vujnovic 10). These are all achievements of the liberal-democratic concept of social order, which, however, directly excludes segments of the heritage from a large number of cultures, founded on non-egalitarian gender relations/generations/ classes/communities, or which in any other way fail to correspond to the Western (Anglo-American) civilizations contemporary understanding of human rights. Thus, a conception of heritage is founded on a politically applied concept of culture, that is, on a protection of a normative culture in accordance with the current ideological trend. And although such a concept appears democratic and directed toward the preservation of differences, it is in fact, a true heiress of Eurocentrism, where European and Christian images are emphasized, and as such, deemed suitable for protection. Acting in accordance with this concept means that not only are cannibal customs not to be preserved, but most ritual practices (including Christian ones) based on gender segregation; also to be left out are vast parts of material culture that testify to various hierarchical divisions implying the exclusion of large numbers of members from access to power and/or knowledge, or to the distances that different cultures make in relation to all categorized as others.




An important problem in the preservation of heritage is the fact that large segments of what may be considered as heritage (even those that, according to the normative understanding of culture, should be preserved) are, for various reasons, either impossible to keep or, especially, to link with museums. These are either: distant, unavailable due to their position parts of bigger settlements whose development is impossible to prevent (even if that was possible, there is always a question of choice of any given moment that would preserve the change) related to practices connected with social/religious customary behaviors, which change in accordance with general life conditions (even when their form remains the same, the meaning is different), making it, thus, impossible to preserve them without stopping life itself. Thus, the very concept of heritage constructs an image of a culture to a greater or lesser extent different from the real, existing one.4 Namely, even professionals cannot construct the desired image of a culture (by using protected artefacts, knowledge, etc.) since it is impossible to place all the parts in one place, at the same time. And that is how we get an image of culture which is only partial (not corresponding to reality) and totally virtual. In general, the concept of heritage protection in the physical, real sense stands in opposition to the development of a society/culture protection and preservation would imply the freezing of life and changes, which is impossible. Therefore, the precise documentation (Gavrilovi} 20062007) of not only museum objects but of the total heritage is the only way of heritage preservation/ keeping, regardless of whether a heritage is material (museum object, profane or sacred architecture, urban design) or non-material. Since such a detailed and precise documentation assumes digitalization and the establishment of a network allowing the flow of information between museums, other heritage centers, institutions for the protection/preservation of cultural monuments and nature, and the users (individuals, local communities, states), the digitalization of information is the first step in the cyberization of heritage protection.


Cyber-museum science/heritage protection should provide a completely new concept to be applied to the keeping and presentation of heritage, which should, regardless of whether or not there is a real museum with real objects (hence: material, touchable), allow the establishment of one general image of a given culture; furthermore, this image should be a piece of work done only by a professional/author of an exhibition, but that would also allow for the participants to construct their own image of a given culture. Complex cognitive representations (Bearman and Trant 203) could (and even ought to) be prepared for the less knowledgeable or for users with fewer demands for those who exclusively want to see an already formed image of a given culture. Nevertheless, even for them, this will be just a first step in their independent research and the development of their own version of the image. The acceptance of the offered variant, its critical appraisal, and the further broadening of each individual users knowledge depend on his/her previous knowledge about the given subject/theme.
4) The issue of real existing culture could be also questioned but, in this case, we are talking about so-called ethnographic reality, including the reality of both the researcher (in this case museum workers) and those being researched, which could (but do not have to be) the same/complementary. See more in Milenkovic 2003: 225246.



Acceptance further depends on the consistency of the offered viewpoint if it is intriguing enough, it will inspire the user to further research, provoking his/hers reactions and commentaries, which will allow the curators/authors of the presentation to further develop the same or some other possible parallel image of the given culture. The creation of these cognitive representations should be a task for all who are engaged in the protection and representation of heritage, which in fact, represents a new, higher level of their interaction with both the objects (museum objects, total heritage) and the users.


This assumes not only the cyberization of the existing museums (digitalization of the objects) but also an establishment of a network of participating museums; this net would also be available to all other forms/parts of the heritage that are not, for whatever reasons, kept in museum storages being either privately owned, in situ and so on. The net should be supported with a system administration of knowledge/information, capable of intelligent data processing and of providing support in choice/decisions; this system should be, at the same time, flexible enough to allow users their individual choices and freedom of movement. Cyberization could, thus, be the ultimate goal of the deconstruction of museums, which have for a long time served as places for only the high classes or the intellectual elite, where the visitors were served with fixed truths (value, scientific, identificational or other). The net would allow connection between objects from various museums, different cultures, diverse parts of the world, which could address the broadest possible corpus of questions (depending on the desires and needs of the users); finally, the net could speak about the unity of the human spirit and the different ways in which it is expressed. The network of cyber-museums and total cyber heritage could thus become all-encompassing information on culture, uniting local, regional, ethnic, religious and national varieties. A further step toward the deconstruction of the museum image of culture (as something created by the untouchable authority of the professional) is the possibility of enhancing the information cluster with different views and materials gathered by the users themselves; another possibility is to establish connection with information that already exists in cyber space, but which is not recognized as relevant, or as a part of the system. In turn, this could create an interactive net, within which one could move around via different ways and see different images of reality: those offered by museum professionals (external, determined explicitly or implicitly by the goals of representation), those offered by the users of the culture/cultures being represented (internal, differ among themselves depending on general or individual context), personal, created by individuals independently in the course of their research of the net of offered information. Cyberization is the only possible way to connect all the elements of heritage, including those that are not politically correct to be found at different hubs of space/time, and which are totally excluded by the present system. At the same time, this is the only way to diminish the influence of ideology on culture presentation, because this new system assumes the participation of different and opposing ideological discourses. In this sense, it is an irreplaceable and unique tool for heritage protection, the preservation of the whole corpus of all its elements meaning and a foundation for a genuine participation of heritage in the general division of knowledge.



Dr Qiqana GAVRILOVI] Etnografski institut SANU Srbija


Apstrakt. Prelaskom u informaciono doba muzeji se polako, sa svim drugim vrstama informacija, pomeraju
iz realnog u virtuelni, sajber-prostor, {to zahteva potpunu rekonceptualizaciju wihovog rada. S druge strane, koncept za{tite ukupne ba{tine, iako teorijski konstruktivan, prakti~no podrazumeva da veliki segmenti ba{tine iz najrazli~itijih razloga objektivno izmi~u mogu}nostima ~uvawa i, posebno, povezivawa s muzejima. Tako se samim konceptom za{tite ba{tine konstrui{e slika kulture koja je veoma razli~ita od one {to realno postoji, te je u tom smislu virtuelna. Trebalo bi da sajber-muzeologija pru`i potpuno nov koncept odnosa prema ~uvawu i predstavqawu ba{tine, koji bi, bez obzira na to da li postoji realan muzej s realnim predmetima ili ne, omogu}io uspostavqawe op{te slike kulture, ne onakve kakvu konstrui{e kustos/autor izlo`be/programa, nego onakve kakvu korisnik `eli da konstrui{e. Povezivawem koncepta sajber-muzeja s konceptom ba{tine mo`e se, istovremeno, realno ostvariti ideja za{tite ba{tine i weno pribli`avawe korisnicima.


Informati~ka revolucija i prelazak u postindustrijsko, informaciono/digitalno doba proizveli su ogromne, jo{ uvek u potpunosti nesagledane promene u svim oblastima qudske delatnosti. Sve vrste informacija tokom posledwih nekoliko decenija polako se pomeraju/preme{taju iz realnog u virtuelni, sajber-prostor,1 postaju}i tako dostupne neuporedivo {irem krugu potencijalnih korisnika nego {to je to ikada ranije bilo mogu}e. Time se u{lo u fazu potpune deelitizacije pristupa znawu, zapo~ete tokom modernog doba. Muzeji se, sa svim drugim vrstama informacija, tako|e postepeno preme{taju u sajber-prostor, {to bar na prvi pogled zahteva potpunu rekonceptualizaciju wihovog rada. Ako, me|utim, pa`qivo razmotrimo funkcionisawe tradicionalnih muzeja i tradicionalno shva}enog koncepta ba{tine,

pokaza}e se da se za muzejske radnike preme{tawem informacija koje muzej nudi iz

* Rad je rezultat istra`ivawa na projektu br. 147021, Antropolo{ka ispitivawa komunikacije u savremenoj Srbiji, koji u celini finansira MNZ@S RS. 1) U engleskom jeziku termin space zna~i prostor, ali i svemir, kosmos, a ima i druga zna~ewa. U srpskom jeziku dosad uobi~ajen prevod termina cyber-space bio je kibersvemir. Termin se kod nas prvi put pojavio u prevodima Gibsonovih romana i, kasnije, druge cyberpunk literature, u kojima su prevodioci, u skladu s terminolo{kim konvencijama u okviru {ireg `anrovskog odre|ewa nau~ne fantastike, potpuno opravdano izabrali srpski termin svemir. Mislim, ipak, da je termin prostor pravi ekvivalent zna~ewa, jer cyber-space zapravo defini{e novu kategoriju prostora/realnosti, dok termin svemir ozna~ava samo jedan od oblika fizi~kog prostora, to jest fizi~ke realnosti. Sajber-prostor nije monolitan, ne-fizi~ki, ne-realni prostor; on se pre mo`e opisati kao mno{tvo novih tehnologija koje koriste razli~iti qudi na razli~itim realnim lokacijama (Miller, Slater) i mo`e se posmatrati kao kultura sama po sebi, segment sveukupne kulture, dakle ~iwenica kulture, ili u kompleksnim vezama s realnom, off-line kulturom/`ivotom (Hine, 1998).



realnog u sajber-prostor ni{ta bitno nije promenilo: na~ini stvarawa osnove za reprezentovawe stvarnosti/realnosti ostali su isti, mada su pro{ireni ranije neostvarqivim mogu}nostima, {to stvara pretpostavke za razre{ewe niza dilema koje prate klasi~an muzejski rad. Promena koja je nesumwiva odnosi se na pove}anu dostupnost informacija koje muzej nudi i mogu}nost novih oblika komunikacije sa (potencijalnom) muzejskom publikom, kao i na osloba|awe od stege zauvek i na samo jedan mogu}i na~in ispri~ane pri~e (Gavrilovi}, 2006).

digitalnom obliku crte`e, fotografije, digital art, web lokacije i sli~no jer i oni, sa fizi~kim/realnim predmetima, dele isti idejni prostor. Tako bi i muzej koji postoji samo u sajber-prostoru i sadr`i samo digitalne muzealije zapravo imao iste karakteristike kao bilo koji drugi.


Muzeji su od svog nastanka koncipirani kao baze podataka2 o ukupnoj kulturi ili o nekom od wenih segmenata.3 Kod muzeja je, me|utim, kao i kod svake baze podataka, poenta u na~inu izbora elemenata/podataka koji ulaze u wihov/wen okvir. Za razliku od ostalih baza podataka, izbor predmeta koji ulaze u okvire muzeja zasniva se na vrednosnim sudovima/procenama: predmeti izabrani da se na|u u muzejskim depoima smatraju se vrednijim od onih koji ostaju van muzejskih okvira. Postoje}i koncept ba{tine, koji bi trebalo da bude daleko {iri i sveobuhvatniji od koncepta muzeja, tako|e je u potpunosti virtuelan i zasniva se na izboru nekih predmeta, pona{awa, znawa, verovawa kojima se pridaje ve}a vrednost u odnosu na druge, {to je osnov za wihovu za{titu. Tako se kulturna sredina segmentira i sme{ta u vrednosne kategorije, pa se nekim segmentima pripisuje visoka vrednost, za razliku od drugih, koji se zanemaruju. Delovawem muzeja i konceptom za{tite ba{tine ukupan kulturni prostor deli se na: vredno : ne-vredno = ulazi : ne ulazi u muzej / kategoriju ba{tine. Zbog toga se ni muzeji niti za{ti}ena ba{tina nikako ne mogu tretirati kao ukupna slika kulture ({to bi, po definiciji, trebalo da

[ola (2002: 156159) nastavqaju}i se na tradicionalno vi|ewe muzeja kao skupa fizi~kih/materijalnih predmeta koji su reprezentanti posmatrane kulture deli digitalizovanu ba{tinu, po kriterijumu materijalnog postojawa, na virtuelne i sajbermuzeje/institucije: ako postoji realan muzej, kao fizi~ka zbirka predmeta (muzealija), wegova on-line verzija bila bi virtuelni muzej, dok bi sajber-muzeji bili oni koji nemaju pandan u realnom, fizi~kom svetu. Takva kategorizacija problemati~na je zbog najmawe dva razloga: 1. Muzej je sam po sebi virtuelan. To je ve{ta~ki, konstruisan prostor (fizi~ki, kulturni i idejni), u kojem postoje neki predmeti, izabrani i izdvojeni iz svoje prirodne/kulturne sredine da bi se predstavili publici kao markeri kulture, te je u potpunosti arteficijelan (Delo{, 2006). Ako bi se usvojila [olina kategorizacija, virtuelni muzej bi, kao on-line verzija ne~ega {to je ve} samo po sebi virtuelno, bio dupla virtuelizacija stvarnosti/realnosti (ma kako se ona definisala), {to, naravno, ne odgovara ~iwenicama. 2. Ne postoji mogu}nost da se formira sajber-muzej kao ne{to {to zaista nema pandan u fizi~koj realnosti svi predmeti koji bi se na{li u tom muzeju postoje negde i, iako nisu sme{teni u isti fizi~ki prostor, to ne umawuje mogu}nost wihovog istovremenog postojawa u istom/zajedni~kom idejnom prostoru. To se odnosi ~ak i na produkte koji postoje samo u

2) Baza podataka je kolekcija pojedina~nih stvari (podataka, predmeta) koje me|u sobom nisu / ne moraju da budu u bilo kakvoj direktnoj korelaciji i, teorijski, imaju istu vrednost. Britannica Online, s.v. database, http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9362288; Wikipedia, s.v. database, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database. 3) To se odnosi ~ak i na prirodwa~ke muzeje, koji ne govore o prirodi samoj po sebi, nego o odnosu kulture koja je formirala muzej prema prikazanoj prirodi {ta iz prirode i na koji na~in interesuje kulturu.



budu), nego samo kao jedna od mogu}ih, na razli~ite na~ine uslovqenih slika kulture, istovremeno one iz koje predmeti poti~u i one koja je formirala muzej / za{titila ba{tinu. Na ~iwenicu dvostrukog modelirawa reprezentacije kulture ne uti~e to da li sami predmeti (znawa, verovawa itd.) poti~u iz kulture koja se defini{e kao strana/tu|a/wihova ili na{a, odnosno da li oni treba da opi{u druge ili nas, jer u oba slu~aja postoji aktivno u~estvovawe muzealca / stru~waka / onoga koji bira predmete u kreirawu slike o kulturi (wima/nama), kao i kreirawu poruke koja se {aqe muzejskim korisnicima. Kategorija vrednog se daqe, izlo`benom politikom, deli na: vi{e : mawe vredno = prikazano : neprikazano, jer najve}i deo predmeta koji postoje u muzejskim fondovima nikada nije prikazan publici oni su kategorisani kao dovoqno vredni da se sa~uvaju kako bi se koristili u stru~nim i/ili nau~nim istra`ivawima, ali i kao ipak nedovoqno atraktivni za prikazivawe muzejskim korisnicima. Aktuelni koncept muzeja i ba{tine na taj na~in iskqu~uje velike segmente fakti~ki postoje}e kulture koji se ne smatraju dovoqno vrednim da bi bili predmet ~uvawa/prikazivawa, te se oni, bez gri`e stru~ne savesti, predaju zaboravu.

nisu u skladu sa savremenim shvatawem prava ~oveka iz zapadne (zapadnoevropske/ angloameri~ke) civilizacije. Konceptualizacija ideje ba{tine tako se zasniva na prvenstveno politi~ki diskurzivnoj primeni koncepta kulture, odnosno za{titi normativne kulture one koja je u skladu s postoje}im ideolo{kim poretkom. Iako naizgled demokratska i usmerena ka o~uvawu razli~itosti, ona je istinski naslednik evropocentri~nog vi|ewa sveta jer insistira na evropskoj i hri{}anskoj predstavi o podobnosti elemenata kulture koje bi trebalo {tititi. Dosledno po{tovawe ovih propisa zna~ilo bi da ni na koji na~in ne treba {tititi/~uvati ne samo qudo`derske obi~aje (Vujnovi}, 2006: 10) nego ni najve}i deo ritualne prakse (ukqu~uju}i hri{}ansku), koja se, po pravilu, zasniva na segregaciji po rodu/polu, ali ni ogromne delove materijalne kulture koji govore o raznim vrstama hijerarhijskih podela i iskqu~ivawa ve}eg dela pripadnika posmatrane kulture iz pristupa mo}i i/ili znawu, kao i distancama koje razli~ite kulture postavqaju u odnosu na sve one koji su kategorisani kao drugi.


Zna~ajan problem kod za{tite ba{tine jeste i ~iwenica da veliki segmenti onoga {to bi se moglo definisati kao ba{tina (~ak i oni koje bi, u skladu s normativnim vi|ewem kulture, trebalo ~uvati) iz najrazli~itijih razloga objektivno izmi~u mogu}nostima ~uvawa i, posebno, povezivawa s muzejima. Oni su: prostorno udaqeni; delovi ve}ih naseqa, ~iji je razvoj nemogu}e zaustaviti (a i kada bi to bilo mogu}e, uvek ostaje pitawe izbora mogu}eg trenutka u kojem bi se promena zaustavila); povezani s praksama koje se ti~u dru{tvenog/religijskog/obi~ajnog pona{awa i koje se mewaju u skladu s promenama op{tih uslova `ivota (~ak i kada im se ne mewa forma, mewaju im se zna~ewa), te ih je nemogu}e o~uvati bez zaustavqawa samog `ivota. Tako se samim konceptom za{tite ba{tine konstrui{e slika kulture mawe ili vi{e


Ako pa`qivije razmotrimo kriterijume na osnovu kojih se segmentacija stvarnosti/kulture sprovodi muzejskom praksom i teorijom i praksom za{tite ba{tine, vide}emo da oni neposredno proisti~u iz aktuelnih politi~kih paradigmi. IKOM-ova definicija nematerijalne ba{tine, na primer, koja se zasniva na po{tovawu me|unarodnih pravnih akata o pravima ~oveka i potrebi uzajamnog uva`avawa me|u zajednicama (Vujnovi}, 2006: 10) kao dostignu}u liberalno-demokratskog koncepta socijalnog ure|ewa, direktno iskqu~uje segmente ba{tine ogromnog broja kultura koje se zasnivaju na neravnopravnim odnosima rodova/generacija/ klasa/zajednica ili na bilo koji drugi na~in



razli~ita od one koja realno postoji.4 Naime, ~ak ni stru~wacima nije mogu}e da (za{ti}enim artefaktima, znawima itd.) konstrui{u sliku kulture kakvu vide / `ele da predstave, jer je nemogu}e staviti wene delove na isto mesto u vremenu i prostoru. Tako je slika kulture koja se dobija konceptom za{tite ba{tine okrwena (ne korespondira sa stvarno{}u) i u potpunosti je virtuelna. Generalno gledano, koncept ~uvawa ba{tine u fizi~kom realnom smislu u sukobu je s razvojem dru{tva/kulture ~uvawe bi zna~ilo zaustavqawe `ivota, zaustavqawe promene, {to jeste nemogu}e. Zbog toga je precizno dokumentovawe (Gavrilovi}, 20062007) ne samo muzejskih predmeta nego i ukupne ba{tine jedini mogu}i na~in wenog ~uvawa, bez obzira na to da li je ona materijalna (muzejski predmet, profana i sakralna arhitektura, urbanisti~ka re{ewa) ili ne (nematerijalna ba{tina). Kako precizno i detaqno dokumentovawe podrazumeva digitalizaciju i uspostavqawe mre`e radi omogu}avawa protoka informacija izme|u muzeja, drugih ba{tinskih centara, institucija za za{titu spomenika kulture i prirode, kao i krajwih korisnika wihovih usluga (pojedinaca, lokalnih zajednica, dr`ave), digitalizacija informacija je prvi korak u sajberizaciji ukupne delatnosti za{tite ba{tine.

Usvajawe ponu|ene varijante, kriti~ki odnos prema woj i daqe pro{irivawe ste~enog znawa svakog pojedinog korisnika zavise od wegovog prethodnog stepena poznavawa predmeta/teme, kao i konzistentnosti ponu|enog vi|ewa ukoliko je ono dovoqno intrigantno, podsta}i }e korisnika na daqe istra`ivawe, izazva}e wegove reakcije i komentare koji kustosima/autorima prezentacije mogu da pomognu u daqem gra|ewu istog ili nekog paralelno mogu}eg vi|ewa kulture koja se predstavqa. Kreirawe takvih saznajnih reprezentacija trebalo bi da bude zadatak svih onih koji se bave za{titom i reprezentovawem ba{tine, a time i kulture, {to je nov, zna~ajno vi{i nivo wihove interakcije kako s predmetima (muzealijama, ukupnom ba{tinom) tako i s korisnicima.


To podrazumeva ne samo sajberizaciju postoje}ih muzeja u smislu digitalizacije wihovih predmeta nego i uspostavqawe mre`e u kojoj }e u~estvovati muzeji, kao i ostali oblici/delovi ba{tine koji iz najrazli~itijih razloga nisu sme{teni u muzejske depoe nalaze se u privatnom vlasni{tvu, in situ i sli~no. Ona bi morala da bude podr`ana i sistemom upravqawa znawem/informacijama, koji bi bio sposoban za inteligentnu obradu podataka i pru`awe podr{ke izboru/odlu~ivawu, a istovremeno dovoqno prilagodqiv da korisnicima omogu}i individualne izbore i samostalno kretawe. Sajberizacija bi tako mogla biti krajwi domet dekonstrukcije muzejskih ustanova kao mesta na koja dolaze samo pripadnici visokih klasa i/ili intelektuelne elite i koja posetiocima saop{tavaju neporecive istine (vrednosne, nau~ne, identifikacione ili neke druge). Wome postaje mogu}e uspostavqawe veza izme|u predmeta iz razli~itih muzeja,
4) Pitawe realno postoje}e kulture tako|e se mo`e problematizovati, ali se u ovom slu~aju misli na tzv. etnografsku stvarnost, i to istovremeno stvarnost istra`iva~a (u ovom slu~aju muzealaca), ali i ispitivanih, koje mogu (ali ne moraju) da budu iste/sli~ne/komplementarne. O razli~itim statusima etnografskog realizma v. Milenkovi} (2003: 225236).

Trebalo bi da sajber-muzeologija / za{tita ba{tine pru`i potpuno nov koncept odnosa prema ~uvawu i predstavqawu ba{tine, koji bi, bez obzira na to da li postoji realan muzej s realnim predmetima (dakle: materijalnim, opipqivim) ili ne, omogu}io uspostavqawe op{te slike kulture, i to ne samo onakve kakvu konstrui{e kustos/autor izlo`be/programa nego i onakve kakvu korisnik `eli da konstrui{e. Kompleksne saznajne reprezentacije (Bearman, Trant, 2003) mogu se (~ak i moraju) pripremati za mawe samostalne ili mawe zahtevne korisnike za one koji iskqu~ivo `ele da im se ponudi ve} formirana slika kulture. To }e ipak, ~ak i za wih, biti tek prvi korak u samostalnom istra`ivawu i formirawu sopstvene varijante slike.



razli~itih kultura, razli~itih krajeva sveta, koje mogu da govore o naj{irem mogu}em korpusu pitawa (u zavisnosti od `eqa i potreba korisnika), a u krajwoj liniji govore o jedinstvu qudskog duha i razli~itim na~inima na koje taj duh deluje. Mre`a sajber-muzeja i celokupne sajber-ba{tine postala bi tako ukupna, sveobuhvatna informacija o kulturi, koja bi objedinila lokalne, regionalne, etni~ke, verske i nacionalne varijacije. Daqi korak u dekonstrukciji muzejske slike kulture, kao ne~ega {to za korisnike kreira nedodirqivi autoritet stru~waka, bila bi mogu}nost dogradwe skupa informacija druga~ijim pogledima i materijalom koji dostavqaju sami korisnici i/ili uspostavqawem veza sa informacijama koje ve} postoje negde u sajber-prostoru, ali nisu prepoznate kao deo sistema. Tako bi se stvarala interaktivna mre`a u kojoj bi bilo mogu}e kretati se razli~itim putevima i videti razli~ite slike stvarnosti: one koje nam nude muzejski stru~waci (eksternalisti~ke, uslovqene eksplicitno ili implicitno postavqenim ciqevima reprezentacije);

one koje nam nude korisnici iz kulture/kultura koje se reprezentuju (internalisti~ke, koje se tako|e mogu razlikovati me|u sobom u zavisnosti od op{teg ili individualnog konteksta); li~ne, koje }e svako samostalno kreirati na svom putu istra`ivawa kroz mre`u ponu|enih informacija. Sajberizacija je, zapravo, jedini mogu}i na~in za povezivawe svih elemenata ba{tine, ukqu~uju}i i one ideolo{ki/politi~ki nepodobne, koji se nalaze na razli~itim ~vori{tima vreme/prostor, {to je potpuno nemogu}e ukoliko se posmatra prava, fizi~ka ba{tina. Istovremeno, ona je i jedini na~in smawivawa uticaja ideologije na reprezentovawe kulture/kultura, jer tako izgra|en sistem pretpostavqa u~e{}e razli~itih, ~esto suprotstavqenih ideolo{kih diskursa. U tom smislu ona je pravi, nezamenqivi alat za za{titu ba{tine, o~uvawe ~itavog korpusa zna~ewa svakog wenog elementa i osnov za istinsko u~estvovawe ba{tine u op{toj raspodeli znawa.



Bearman, D., Trant, J., 2003, Familiarity Breeds Content: knowledge and effect in museums on the Web, Archives & Museum Informatics, Pittsburgh, http://www.archimuse.com/publishing/mw_2003_intro.html; Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com; Vujnovi}, A., 2006, Nematerijalna ba{tina u svetu muzeja, u: Negovawe i za{tita nematerijalne ba{tine u Srbiji. Zbornik radova Muzejskog dru{tva Srbije 2, Beograd, 914; Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/; Gavrilovi}, Q., 2006, Cyber-muzej: muzejski prostor i kako ga savladati, Rad Muzeja Vojvodine 47/48, Novi Sad, 253260; Gavrilovi}, Q., 20062007, Dokumentacija etnografskog muzejskog predmeta i nova muzeolo{ka paradigma, Zbornik 15, Narodni muzej, Ni{; Delo{, B., 2006, Virtuelni muzej, Beograd; Manovich, L., 2001, Database as symbolic form, http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu /archive/courses/warner/english197/Schedule_files/Manovich/Database as symbolic form.htm; Milenkovi}, M., 2003, Problem etnografski stvarnog. Polemika o Samoi u krizi etnografskog realizma, Etnolo{ka biblioteka 12, Beograd; Miller, D., Slater, D., The Internet, An Ethnographic Approach, http://ethnonet.gold.ac.uk/chapter.html; Hine, C., 1998, Virtual Ethnography, International Conference: 2527 March 1998, Bristol, UK, Conference Papers, http://www.sosig.ac.uk/iriss/papers/paper16.htm; [ola, T., 2002, Marketing u muzejima ili o vrlini i kako je obznaniti, Beograd.