*4.2. The Role of the Museum in the Relationship with the Territory, the Community, and the Public*

There are several references to the articulation between the ecclesiastical museum and the territory throughout the Circular Letter within the conceptual framework of '*integrated and spread out museum*' (PCCHC 2001, sec. 4.3). The connection of the integrated museum to the territory takes place in a model of vertical coordination, in which local museums submit to the coordination of a leading museum, in this case, the diocesan one. The integrated-museum model has been criticised for restricting the community's participation in knowledge creation and institutional discourses and activities, while the integral museum is open to the territory in a dialogic process with residents (Ippoliti et al. 2019). However, in practice, these models have been revealed as hybrids, articulating the vertical coordination with the integrative perspective of territory and communities, which coincides with the dispositions of the Circular Letter.

The diffuse museum seeks to add different places and cultural institutions with complementary functions, material and immaterial cultural testimonies, and any other type of resource relevant to the territory's identity (Minucciani 2005). The museological action goes beyond the museum's physical space, covering the territory and interacting with the community. The territory becomes, in this way, an extension of the museum in a complex network of interactions: the museum values the cultural heritage of the territory and acts as an agent of identity construction of the place; the territory provides the memory of culture and historical and cultural heritage, in its tangible and intangible components. From the memories associated with heritage, the community produces content that the museum shares, stimulating new contributions and, in this way, expanding the epistemological field of the museum.

Considering that the relationship between museum and territory is built based on the community's self-perception, the systems of thought, and the values inherent to its culture, each museum, even in a model of integrated coordination, defines itself in a particular and dynamic way, dependent on space and time.

The search for more significant interaction with the community coincides with the emergence of museology centred on the public and the visitor's experience (Packer and Ballantyne 2016). The museum public is no longer an undifferentiated mass and is to be understood in its plurality, composed of active individuals, interpreters, and participants in elaborating the museological discourse and planning museological actions. The monological nature of the first museums is replaced by the dialogic and interactive models. Hence, by focusing on audiences, the museum tends to opt for a more participatory and co-creative relational model. Knowledge is produced through mixed and heterogeneous discourses, eventually contradictory, integrating the narratives and experiences of the community.

The models of Interaction between the museum and the community, whether participatory or co-creative (Antón et al. 2018; Long et al. 2019; Ross 2020; Simon 2010), point to a path of action already implicit in the Circular Letter. It suggests initiatives involving the community audiences to increase the sense of belonging to the heritage and the commitment to its preservation.

Recognition of the plurality of audiences has implications in terms of communication or cultural mediation. The museum tends to configure itself as an interpretive centre, adapting information to different audiences by distinguishing between believers and nonbelievers and, according to the different levels of knowledge, skills, sensitivities, and desires. In order to adapt to this reality, modalities of segmented communication have been advocated, with various levels and types of information by the plurality of audiences. Here, we highlight information and communication technologies that allow a variety

of knowledge transmission strategies suitable for different audience profiles, including virtual ones.

While most museums maintain mediation strategies limited to traditional analogue solutions, such as interpretive captions, panels, and room sheets, complemented with guided tours that formalise a direct museological discourse with similar interest groups, digital technology allows the creation of an interactive environment in the space museum, with greater effectiveness in acquiring knowledge and understanding the above. In this way, knowledge is no longer passively received, implying the effort without prejudice to its playful character and giving primacy to the receiver of the message in the choice of method and research instruments. On the other hand, using technologies makes it possible to send additional information to marginal or extrinsic spaces to the museological route without distorting the space, transforming it into a technological apparatus. Being minimally intrusive, the integration of connectors between the visitor and the information, such as barcodes, QR codes, or RFID, allows access to remotely enhanced textual and multimedia information. Other strategies, such as 3D modelling, web mapping, storytelling, augmented and virtual reality, non-invasive in the space materiality, customisable, and interactive, promote new forms of cognitive, emotional, and playful relationships with the exhibition. The use of technology in the mediation process, before, during, or after the museum visit, is the most relevant element missing in the Circular Letter and should be considered further in the guidelines related to the functioning of the ecclesiastical museum.

## **5. Conclusions**

The Circular Letter proposes that the ecclesiastical museum is an instrument to preserve and safeguard the liturgical and devotional objects disaffected to the cult while keeping them close to the cultural group of origin and giving them a primary evangelisation role. This conceptualisation contradicts the principle of neutrality. However, it has been questioned, considering that a museological discourse is hardly neutral and tends to present a perspective of facts and phenomena. At the CIMAM Annual Conference *The 21st Century Art Museum: Is Context Everything?*, held in Sydney in 2018, Suay Aksoy, then ICOM President, stated that 'museums are not neutral. They never have and never will [be]. They are not separate from their social and historical context. [ ...] To accomplish their missions and serve the betterment of societies, museums do not need to be neutral' (Aksoy 2018). Aksoy's argument, reflecting a stance of increasing popularity in museum studies, supports the Circular Letter's proposals on ecclesiastical museum evangelisation. Thus, ecclesiastical museums assume a religious ideology aiming to educate, inform, dialogue, and co-create narratives with the community, but it is compelled to provide objective, rigorous, and validated information. Over the last two decades, ecclesiastical museums have been applying the standards defined by the Charter. In Portugal, the treasures or cathedral museums of Lisbon, Braga, Évora, and Funchal can be mentioned in addition to the temporary exhibitions promoted by the Museum of the Sanctuary of Fátima.

As enunciated in the starting hypothesis, the analysis of the Circular Letter and its discussion in museum studies within a theoretical frame confirm its accuracy, particularly regarding the recontextualisation of the religious object in the ecclesiastical museum, covering its materiality and intangible meanings and the role of the museum in the relationship with the territory, the community, and its heterogeneous public.

The time that has elapsed since the publication of the Circular Letter does not compromise its relevance, adequacy, and usefulness, following (and, sometimes, anticipating) advances in museum studies. Therefore, two decades later, it is proposed that the scope of the Circular Letter be broadened, applying the norms and procedures enunciated in the document to the musealisation of religious spaces. Considering the growing religious illiteracy of the public who attend and visit churches and sanctuaries with a cultural or touristic purpose, the musealisation of these spaces—in a discreet and non-invasive way, using digital communication—appears an appropriate strategy for fostering knowledge and interpretation of the place.

It is suggested that the process to further pursue the Circular Letter postulates and goals should involve a collaboration between the ecclesial institutions and universities to formalise academic research in this domain, contributing to a theoretical corpus to support the musealisation of religious objects or the museology of religion.

**Funding:** This work is funded by Portuguese national funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project UIDB/00057/2020.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


Mairesse, François. 2014. *Le Culte Des Musées*. Bruxelles: Académie Royale de Belgique.

Mairesse, François, ed. 2018. *Museology and the Sacred: Materials for a Discussion = La Muséologie et Le Sacré: Matériaux Pour Une Discussion = La Museologia y Lo Sagrado: Materiales Para Una Discusión: Papers from the ICOFOM 41th Symposium Held in Tehran (Iran), 15–19 October 2018*. Paris: ICOFOM.

Mairesse, François. 2019. Museology and the Sacred [Special Issue]. *ICOFOM Study Series* 47: 1–205. [CrossRef]


Waterton, Emma, and Steve Watson, eds. 2013. *Heritage and Community Engagement: Collaboration or Contestation?* London: Routledge. Whitehead, Christopher. 2012. *Interpreting Art in Museums and Galleries*. London: Routledge.

Willis, Michael. 2015. Detritus to Treasure: Memory, Metonymy, and the Museum. In *Sacred Objects in Secular Spaces: Exhibiting Asian Religions*. Edited by Bruce M. Sullivan. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 145–52.

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
