Gifting representations’ analysis in the digital environment of Moscow museums

   The article presents the research results of gifting online-representations of 170 museums in Moscow (federal, regional, private). Data collection and its interpretation were structured around the duality of the museum gift as a semantic unit representing the following categories: 1) appeals and requests from museums for different types of property support (new items or monetary donations); 2) gifts previously given to the museum, presented in electronic catalogues. The data collected from the materials of Moscow museums’ websites showed that appeals for assistance to museums, regardless of the type of charity, are the lot of a minority (8–15 %). In turn, 82 museums have systematized electronic catalogues, among them only 13 % clearly distinguish information about the way of items’ arrival and through a gift, including in a separate category of description. Considering a long history of philanthropists’ influence on the formation and development of museums, and evidence of existing museum support practices, the author does not argue about low intensity of donations in museum institutions, but offers to draw a conclusion about the relationship between low articulation of gift intentions and donations in the collections and functioning of the museum field in Moscow, its rules and shared norms.

1. Bailey Ross C. et al. (2013), “Enhancing Museum Narratives: Tales of Things and UCL’s Grant Museum”, The Mobile Story Narrative Practices with Locative Technologies, pp. 276–289

2. Blunden A. (2021), “Anthony Giddens on Structuration”, Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky. Leiden: Brill, 430 p. doi: 10.1163/9789004470972_025

3. Bourdieu P. (2000), “The field of literature”, New Literary Observer, no. 45, pp. 22–87 (In Russian).

4. Bourdieu P. (2019), Economic anthropology: a course of lectures at the Collège de France (1992–1993), ed. by P. Champagne, J. Duval with participation of F. Poupeau, M.-C. Riviere, Trans. from French Kralechkin D., Delo Publishing house, RANEPA, Moscow, Russia (In Russian)

5. Deutscher G. (2016), Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages, Trans. from Eng. Zhukova N. Y., AST Publishers, Moscow, Russia (In Russian)

6. Fedorov N. F. (2015), Museum, its Meaning and Purpose, Avant-Garde Museology, V-A-C press. Moscow, Russia (In Russian).

7. Giannini T., Bowen J. P. (2019), Museums and Digital Culture: New perspectives and research, Springer, London, the UK.

8. Gürel E., Nielsen A. (2019), “Art museum visitor segments: Evidence from Italy on omnivores and highbrow univores”, International Journal of Arts Management, vol. 2, no. 21, pp. 55–69

9. Kupor D., Flynn F., Norton M. (2017), “Half a Gift Is Not Half-Hearted: A Giver–Receiver Asymmetry in the Thoughtfulness of Partial Gifts”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 43, pp. 1–11.

10. Levent N., Pascual-Leone A. (2021), The Multisensory Museum: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory, and Space, Trans. from Eng. Gatitulin S., Lebedev A., Lebedeva N. M., Garage, Moscow, Russia (In Russian)

11. Maistrovskaya M. T. (2018), Museum as an Object of Culture. XX Century: The Art of Exposition Ensemble, Progress-Tradition, Moscow, Russia (In Russian).

12. Merriman N. (2020), “30 Years after the New Museology: What’s Changed?” Prace Etnograficzne, vol. 2, no. 48, pp 173–187

13. Parry J. (1986), “The Gift, the Indian Gift and the «Indian Gift»”, Man, pp. 453–473

14. Shlyakhtina L. M. (2009), Fundamentals of Museum Business: Theory and Practice, Vysshaya shkola Moscow, Russia (In Russian)

15. Simon N. (2017), The Participatory Museum, Trans. from Eng. Glebovskaya A., Ad Marginem, Moscow, Russia (In Russian).