Documenting and Mediating The Museum:

A Case Study of the Documentary Film,

Our Museum

潘　夢斐*
Mengfei PAN

1．INTRODUCTION

The museum exists on multiple levels. In (2008; sequel in 2014) and National Gallery
addition to policies, legislations, physical (2014) and contextual studies of the filmmaking
buildings, and academic discourse, the museum process, it finds that previous theories fail to
is also presented in various kinds of media grasp the precise museum image in these
products. This research focuses on the museum documentary films. By examining whether Our
in the documentary film, Our Museum (2002) Museum coheres with previous studies on film-
directed by Yasushi Kishimoto. It argues that world museums, this paper argues that rather
this work plays a role in documenting the than deifying or demonizing museums, it
museum, and more importantly, mediating the achieves constructing the museum as a place in
often-contrasting museum images that various which varying personal thoughts are instilled.
societal players tend to construct. It provides a By adopting the form of film, a vehicle
platform to raise questions about the raison potentially capable of reaching many, and
d'être of the museum by interweaving personal enriching the narrative by giving voice to
memories and visions with the registered selected groups of people, Our Museum creates
histories of institutions and countries. a polyphonic space rather than inclining
This research adopts an interdisciplinary towards any of the imageries from academia,
approach to fill the gap between film studies institutions, and popular media products. It
and museum studies. Through textual analysis serves as a tool to stage a negotiated museum
of O u r M u s e u m (2002) and a few other image on screen and invites further discussions.
examples including The New Rijksmuseum

* P
 h.D. student, ITASIA Course, Prof. YOSHIMI Shunya Laboratory, Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies,
The University of Tokyo
キーワード：media representation of museums, museum in documentary films, museums in Japan, museum studies

69
2．PREVIOUS STUDIES IN FILM STUDIES AND MUSEUM STUDIES

Previous research offers insights into museum finding is that the museum in films often
representations in films and the relationship implies class distinctions, or provides the
between popular culture and museums. Studies backdrop for strange people and tensions. This
that shed light on the former include Kimberly museum image in films reveals a stark contrast
Louagie’s and Suzanne Oberhardt’s studies on with the institutional discourse, uttered by
American films between the mid-1980s and museums themselves, that the museum is for
mid-1990s (Louagie 1996; Oberhardt 2000) and every one. Examining thirty-three American
Steven Jacobs’ research on Alfred Hitchcock’s films between 1985 and 1995, Louagie comes to
works (2006; 2009). Previous studies on the the conclusion that museums are seen as
relationship between popular culture and “treasure houses filled with untouchable
museums include those by Kevin Moore (1997) objects”“ and“awesome gallery spaces full of
and Mariko Murata (2013 & 2014). well-educated museum patrons”(1996, 48). On
the other hand, Jacobs concludes from an
1) Perspectives from film studies analysis of a total number of seventy-four films
Research by Louagie, Jacobs, and Oberhardt that in addition to artists and connoisseurs,
pays particular attention to the museum image museums in films often provide a kind of
1
in films. In spite of their varying research harbour for tourists, snobs, dandies, iconoclasts,
objectives, the three scholars share in their thieves, secret lovers, spies and haunted or
main approach, textual analysis of the films. cursed characters (2009, 297). Arguably
Louagie, a museum curator, looks for addressing the findings by Louagie and Jacobs,
stereotypical images of museums in films and through detailed analysis of five Hollywood
expects to see how museums can learn from films, Oberhardt identifies a stereotypical
films (1996). From an architectural history and binary that separates the fictional characters
film studies perspective, Jacobs attempts to into“insiders”and“outsiders”of the museum
discern how museum buildings and monuments (2000). The former are assumed to be those
appear in films (2006; 2009). Oberhardt with social approval and acceptance, and the
examines how these films have the potential to latter, graceless and evil (ibid.). These studies
offer insights for art educators (2000). discern that the museum often serves as a
Through textual analysis, the three scholars bizarre place that distinguishes certain groups
deconstruct the museum image into of people into the elite or the weird.
architecture, artifacts, and people. A shared Despite that this finding is convincing from

70 　　　　 東京大学大学院情報学環紀要　情報学研究　№92
the authors’ meticulous analysis, two main provides insights into the scholarly
problems remain. One is that they fail to interpretation of the encounter between
provide a rationale for the selection of films. museums and popular or media cultures.
Oberhardt admits that her selection of the Museum Studies as a discipline has been
target films is random (2000, 55). Discussions changing in the past three or four decades and
over the particularity of the selected films has become increasingly interdisciplinary (Pan
across cultures or film genres remain 2015). This paper adopts a broad definition of
underdeveloped. For example, whether the “Museum Studies”and takes research with
Hollywood films between the mid-1980s and museums as the analysis target as Museum
mid-1990s, Hitchcock’s works, documentary Studies. Kevin Moore (1997) and Mariko Murata
films, and films produced in different countries (2013 & 2014) are among the scholars who
appropriate museums in different/similar ways study the contemporary intimacy between
is a question worth exploring. museums and popular culture since the 1980s.
A lack of contextual analysis can also be Although Moore and Murata refer to
identified. None of the three scholars’ research scholarship in cultural studies and media
encompasses a study of the filmmaking process. studies, their main subjects are museums and
They make attempts to connect film analysis are assumed to be part of Museum Studies
with museum studies, i.e. the New Museology literature.
framework and Tony Bennett’s criticism of Moore, curator of the National Football
museums’ bourgeois exclusivity (Jacob 2009, Museum in Preston, U.K., supports museums’
304; Bennett 1995, 25-33; Oberhardt 2000, 72-74). incorporation of popular culture as a suitable
However this disparity in museum image is not and necessary subject matter (1997). Employing
sufficiently theorized. An inspection of the cultural studies theories to re-evaluate popular
contexts including film production may lead to culture, or“non-authentic and spurious”objects,
what shapes the difference in comprehension of and his experience in the U.K., Moore is
museums between the academic, institutional convinced of the democratic potential of
discourses, and film-world representation. This popular culture (Moore 1997; Brabazon 2006).
paper aims to fill the gap by examining one He contends that popular culture’s presence in
documentary film and incorporating analysis of museums provides a political battleground to
the filmmaking context. instigate debates over social class and
competing ideology (Moore 1997, 78). He also
2) A perspective from museum studies points out two ways to democratize museums:
Another perspective from museum studies one to offer a more accessible interpretation of

Documenting and Mediating The Museum: 71

A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum
high culture, and the other to“broaden the historical factors — the strong connection
subject matter to include culture and history of between early public museums and industry
all members of society”(1997, vii). promotion agendas in the Meiji period,
Following Moore’s method and optimistic prevalent museum-like spaces in department
vision towards museums’ incorporation of stores, and the long-established practice of
popular culture, Murata mainly focuses on the blockbuster-type exhibitions sponsored by
case of Japan. By analyzing the phenomenon of media companies — delineate a distinct
increasing institutionalization of popular museum scene in this country. Rather than
cultures such as manga, films, music, and sports serving a strong democratization agenda as
as museum content, Murata indicates that this Moore suggests, museums in Japan from the
trend reflects the expansion of museums to beginning have their life in popular culture, and
include those previously regarded as marginal mass media has been a close partner of
(2014, 244-50). A few indigenous features of museums. Oberhardt’s argument that the art
museums in Japan can account for the museum’s life in popular culture has previously
phenomenon of popularization of museum been ignored and/or misconstrued may be true
experience, or the tendency of museums to in academia but loses some of its validity in the
become more ready for consumption through cultural life of Japan (2000, 2).
media products (Murata 2013; Pan 2014). Three

3．MECHANICS OF MUSEUM IMAGE CONSTRUCTION

Prior theories in museum studies reveal that and institutional discourses, to pave ways for
the intimacy between popular culture and the later discussions on museums in
museums has political democratic potential and documentary films.
indigenous Japanese reasons. Film studies This paper develops a new model based on
however demonstrate a disparity in the Oberhardt’s pedagogy paradigm. Oberhardt
museum image between one established in the proposes a four-quadrant model to understand
film world, mysterious and exclusive, and that the museum image (Fig. 1). The four frames
advocated by museum institutions, democratic are Art History, New Museology, Popular
and open to all. This part explores one Culture, and Pedagogy that re-negotiates the
remaining task left by Louagie, Jacobs, and former three frames. This model is helpful in
Oberhardt, as discussed earlier: the under- elucidating the divides in art historical
theorized chasm between the popular, academic discourse and popular culture that deify

72 　　　　 東京大学大学院情報学環紀要　情報学研究　№92
museums, and the New Museology that museum, “it becomes sacred; represents
demonizes museums. The vertical axis suggests sensual romantic love; is elitist in an inclusive
a continuum from the traditional home of the way because of its aspirational and inspirational
museum, the Academy, to the territory of role; and has a moral and authoritative voice”
popular culture. The horizontal axis indicates a (2000, 5-6). When people demonize the museum,
more “emotive” continuum, showing how “it becomes profane; eroticizes and objectifies
people feel about museums, from deifying them the body; is elitist in a way that is exclusive;
to demonizing them. With more explanations and through its authoritarian profile as an
over the “deify/demonize” dichotomy, agent of oppression”(ibid.).
Oberhardt proposes that when people deify the

Fig.1.　Pedagogy frame penetrating the three frames (Oberhardt 2000, 7).

Frame 1: Art historical; Frame 2: New Museology; Frame 3: Popular culture;
Frame 4: Pedagogy, process of renegotiation between the three former frames.

Although Oberhardt’s diagram offers insights by the directors and curators, reveals the self-
into the disparities, it also suffers from three image held by the museums, demonstrates the
limitations. First, Oberhardt overlooks the attitude of the major patron, usually the
museum institutions’ voice that Louagie points government, and pragmatically informs the
out. She argues that the voice of the museum museum’s daily practice. It seems that rather
itself is framed in the ways other voices talk it than occupying one specific zone, the
into being (2000, 3). Still the institutional institutional is advocated to turn itself into the
discourse, publicized in official papers and given penetrative pedagogy frame.

Documenting and Mediating The Museum: 73

A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum
 Oberhardt’s model also generalizes the Examples include those films examined by
academic discourse of Museum Studies, only Louagie, Oberhardt, and Jacobs and a few
referencing to New Museology. Rather than others such as the novel The Catcher in the
being unified, Museum Studies scholarship can Rye by J. D. Salinger (1951), folk song Museum
be divided into two in terms of their by Donovan (1966), music animation
perspective: the critical and the optimistic. To Metropolitan Museum of Art by NHK (Japan’s
be more explicit, the strand of the literature national public broadcasting organization)
she examines takes a critical perspective. The Minna no uta Program (Song of Every One)
best examples are Pierre Bourdieu’s acute (1985) in which the museum is imagined as a
critique of art gallery’s elitism (Bourdieu and place of mysteries, adventure, and romantic
Darbel 1969; Bourdieu 1984) and Tony Bennett’s encounters (Pan 2013).
theory articulating modern public museums’ As Figure 2 shows, another three forces
social function as disciplinary apparatus (1995). stretch the museum image towards different
However an opposite and more positive opinion directions. One is the institutional discourse and
can also be identified inside academia. These optimistic museum studies that view the
optimistic works include Kevin Moore’s and museum as a democratic place, accommodating
those who believe in museums’ post-colonial all cultures and all people. Also optimistically,
and democratic potential, i.e. James Clifford’s however from a different standing point, the
theory of“museums as contact zones”(Clifford discourse by the artist groups can be identified.
1997; Boast 2011). They believe in the special identity of the
A new model can be proposed to plot the museum space and see museums as an
varying forces that tend to develop a certain important place for displaying artworks and
kind of museum image (Fig. 2). Rather than promoting creative collaborations. A third force
adopting the binary of deifying or demonizing, is by cultural studies and critical museum
it draws demarcations between the sectors, studies scholarship that questions the museum.
popular media, artists, cultural studies and It pays attention to the politics of museum
critical museum studies, and institutional space and often criticizes museum elitisms,
discourse. It finds that the popular media serving the interest of a particular social group.
projects its imagination towards museums.

74 　　　　 東京大学大学院情報学環紀要　情報学研究　№92
Fig.2.　Mechanics of museum image construction under four major forces.

This diagram aims to offer an entire picture forces. The categorization does not aim to pose
of the post-New-Museology frame that rigid boundaries and exceptions exist. For
Oberhardt suggests, to scrutinize not through example, the Dadaists are skeptical artists who
“texts displayed by museums but rather challenge the authoritarian status of the art
through how the museum itself is represented museum. This brings us to the question of how
and talked about in contemporary society”by the documentary film, Our Museum, can be
various sectors (2000, 9). It reveals that the placed in or challenge this model.
museum imagery diverges under four varying

4．CASE STUDY OF OUR MUSEUM

1) Reasons for choosing Our Museum As Bill Nichols argues, the definition of
Our Museum (2002) is a fifty-seven-minute “documentary film” can be established in
documentary film produced by a Japanese contrast to fiction, experimental, and avant-
director, Yasushi Kishimoto (1961-). The reason garde films (2001, 20). He also suggests four
for selecting a documentary film in Japan is to angles, institution, practitioner, texts (films and
investigate whether the diagram can still videos), and audience, to examine whether a
remain valid for a film genre disparate from work can be defined as a documentary film
the entertainment and avant-garde film (i.e. (2001). Our Museum serves as a good example
Hitchcock’s and Hollywood films) and whether of a documentary film. From the perspective of
Japanese indigenous characteristics underlie the“practitioner”and“audience”
, it can be
the film productions and representations. categorized as a documentary film. Its director,

Documenting and Mediating The Museum: 75

A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum
Kishimoto, has established his career as an“art several documentary film festivals with
documenter”
, or more precisely, documentarian audiences of documentaries (Fig. 3). During an
specializing in shooting art related subject interview with the author, Kishimoto also
2
matters. This work has been screened at identifies this work as a documentary (2016).

Fig.3：Past public screening of Our Museum.

The 21th International Festival of Films on Art in Montreal;

2003
remo (record, expression and medium organization) in Osaka;
Friend of Museum Event at Hyogo Prefectural Museum of Art;
2004
BankART 1929 Yokohama;
Research Institute for Digital Media and Content, Keio University at Hamanako International
Brain Centre;
2005 As part of exhibitions, Museums for a New Millennium: Concepts Projects Buildings, and
Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa / SANAA, at 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art,
Kanazawa;
Art Documentary Week at Kyoto Cinema;
2006
ARCUS STUDIO (Residency for Artists, Experiments for Local, Moriya, Ibaraki);
At Kyoto Minami-Kaikan as part of PARASOPHIA, Kyoto International Festival of Contemporary
2015
Culture

This work is also important considering the recognition, shifting from a “gallerist” to
status of the film director in Japan and its “documentary director”
, with his works
independent nature. Kishimoto is a leading entering renowned documentary film festivals,
figure in the field of art documentation by e.g. The Biennale internationale du film sur l'art
moving image in Japan. From both Kishimoto’s (BIFA) held by the Pompidou Centre.
own words and media reports, Kishimoto is the Winning credits from both within Japan and
first among a limited number of professionals overseas, Kishimoto is now among the most
who dedicate themselves to documenting important filmmakers in the art scene in Japan.
contemporary art by videos and films in Japan A second reason is that Our Museum is one
(Ohashi 1997; Kyoto Keizai Shimbun 1998). early work that features museums and shows
Originally a company employee, Kishimoto quit independence from the museum institutions.
his job and started a gallery called Ufer in From a list of works with documentary
Kyoto in 1992 and self-trained himself as an art character featuring museums (Fig. 4), Our
documentarian video-taping young artists’ art M u s e u m is one of the early works that
production process in Kyoto. Tracing the media anticipate a growing number of documentary
reports in newspapers between 1994 and 2004, projects since the beginning of the twenty-first
we can find that he gradually gained century.

76 　　　　 東京大学大学院情報学環紀要　情報学研究　№92
 Fig.4：List of selected works with documentary character featuring museums.

1976 NHK Educational Program, Nichiyo Bijutsukan (Sunday Art Museum)

2002 Our Museum (directed by Yasushi Kishimoto);
2007 BBC Wales, TV documentary series, The Museum (featuring The British Museum);
2008- Photography project titled as Smotritelnitsy (women who watch), or Guardians in English by
2009 Andy Freeberg at museums in Russia;
2010 The New Rijksmuseum, a Sequel in 2014 (directed by Oeke Hoogendijk);
2013 The Vatican Museums 3D (directed by Marco Pianigiani);
The Great Museum (directed by Johannes Holzhausen, featuring Kunsthistorisches Museum in
Vienna;
2014 National Gallery (directed by Frederick Wiseman, featuring The National Gallery, London);
Cathedrals of Culture, an omnibus documentary (Pompidou Centre episode directed by Karim
Ainouz);
2015 Francofonia: Le Louvre Under German Occupation (directed by Alexander Sokurov);
Masters in Forbidden City (three-episode TV documentary on China Central Television; later
2016 developed into a 86-minute film version)(directed by Han Xiao and Jun Ye, featuring the Palace
Museum in China).

Its independence from the museums is also U.S. maintain specific departments specializing
noteworthy. Commissioned works by museums in documenting their rotating exhibitions and
are expected to reveal coherence with or budgets to collaborate with famous
greater influence from the institutional documentary film directors (2016). In Japan,
discourse, leading to relatively easy positioning most are planned and produced by NHK, e.g.
of the case in the proposed diagram. For Nichiyo Bijutsukan (Sunday Art Museum), a
example, an NHK program, Tokyo National program on air since 1976, introducing art of
Museum: Best Three Selected from Twelve almost all genres. According to Akira Miyata, a
Sections by Curators (2009), later released as a senior researcher at NHK, rather than a
DVD boxed set, introduces the history and documentary, Nichiyo Bijutsukan is recognized
important collections of The Tokyo National inside NHK more as an educational program
Museum, the oldest museum in Japan. This (kyoyo bangumi). Our Museum, an independent
museum also releases a ten-minute video on its documentary film featuring museums, serves as
official website,“140 years of Tokyo National a good example to test the diagram and to
3
. Both works reveal the institution’s
Museum” discern Japanese characteristics.
aspiration to enhance its publicity. As
Kishimoto accounts, even this kind of 3) Case Study of Our Museum (2002)
commissioned work by museums is still rare in The discussions in this part interweave both
Japan while large museums in Europe and the contextual and textual studies including the

Documenting and Mediating The Museum: 77

A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum
conception, process of filmmaking, and assumed interrogation,“what is an art museum”for him
audience, mainly collected from an interview and shot between 1995 and 2001 (2002).
with Kishimoto, and elements in the text In addition to weaving personal memory into
including the story, featured museums, the film, Kishimoto also takes part in the film
“characters”, artworks, and narration and as the narrator and appears visually. Kishimoto
sound. After contextual and textual studies, it plays as the narrator himself, setting a tone of
analyzes how this work can be understood autobiography and practically to save cost
along with the previously proposed diagram. (2016). His voice-of-god narration instills both
It is first important to notice that Our his personal memory and historical facts into
Museum has a strong autobiographical the scenes. In one of the beginning scenes, the
character in terms of conception and presence narration recollects his first encounter with
of the director in the film. In contrast with The KMMA, saying the large doors and waxed
New Rijksmuseum (2008; sequel in 2014) which wooden floors left the strongest impression on
is commissioned by the Museum and carries a him. A boy strides in front of KMMA with the
journalistic value in documenting and reporting visuals rendered in monochrome, imitating old
the institution’s renovation projects, Our videos. In the closing scene, a man appears
Museum was conceived out of Kishimoto’s with camera appliances on his shoulders and
personal enthusiasm and entirely self-funded steps up towards the entrance of the Museum.
(Harris 2013; Kishimoto 2002 & 2016). It seems Echoing that man’s sight, the camera scene
that many film directors, including Hitchcock, moves upward, highlights the façade of the
4
Frederick Wiseman, and Woody Allen, share a building, and closes the film. It is later
personal fascination with art and museums. As confirmed during the interview that the boy at
Kishimoto accounts, he came to this idea when the beginning is played by Kishimoto’s son and
participating in the 1994 Biennale internationale the man at the end is Kishimoto himself. The
du film sur l'art which gave him an opportunity beginning and ending resonate with each other
to visit the museums in Paris. These trips and lend the film an atmosphere of personal
reminded him of Kyoto Municipal Museum of memories and emotions.
Art (abbreviated as KMMA afterwards) in his In terms of the story, Our Museum is mainly
hometown and that his visits to KMMA during historical and goes back and forth between the
childhood may have greatly cultivated his two cities, Kyoto and Paris. It is a unique work
passion for art and decision to shift his career among Kishimoto’s oeuvre that usually features
to become a film documentarian of art. The contemporary Japanese artists, including
production of film starts from a personal Yasumasa Morimura, Hiroshi Sugimoto, and

78 　　　　 東京大学大学院情報学環紀要　情報学研究　№92
Imo Taba, and their process of art creation documents, Kishimoto incorporates voices from
(Kishimoto 2016). Our Museum tells how the anonymous visitors, museum professionals,
museums form themselves through historical artists, art critics, and architects. At the very
events such as wars, architectural renovation beginning of the film, there is a thirty-second
projects, and various activities. It is interesting shot with twenty-five interviewees taken in
to notice that Kishimoto is inspired to front of KMMA and the Pompidou Centre. The
reproduce the history, or document the question itself is not articulated but very likely
museums through research, interviews, and “what is an art museum for you”. The age
camera-work. As Kishimoto recollects, because and ethnicity of the interviewees seem to be
the theme is primarily historical, he found it wide ranging and the languages they use are
difficult to reproduce the old scenes (ibid.). Japanese, English and French. Their replies
Unlike those featuring the ongoing activities of include “culture”,“silence”,“testimony”,
the artists that he could simply chase with his “ e n r i c h m e n t ”,“ n e c e s s i t y ”,“ d i s c o v e r y ”,
camera, this work did not have a fixed time-line “energy for tomorrow”, and“sanctuary”. All
to follow and had to rely on research of their answers turn out to be positive and seem
historical materials. These old photographs, to strengthen an image that they are the ideal
drawings, and documents are introduced in the “public”who sympathize with museums.
film to pace the story. In contrast with the twenty-five people with
The story covers six museums in total with fleeting and anonymous presence, nine figures
two in Kyoto and four in Paris. They are were selected and given due introduction.
KMMA, Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art, Kishimoto adopts talking-head interviews with
Museé d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris the interviewees’ names and occupations
(abbreviated as MAMVP afterwards), Palais de displayed on the screen for a few seconds when
Tokyo, Galerie nationale du Jeu de Paume, and they first appear. This mode of presentation
Pompidou Centre. Among the six, KMMA and seems to give their opinions a strong sense of
KAMVP obtain most attention. As Kishimoto credibility and authority. These“characters”
explains, he aims to compare the case in Japan are Suzanne Page (Director, MAMVP), Nicolas
with that in Paris; KMMA and MAMVP, both Bourriaud and Jérôme Sans (Directors, Palais
established in the 1930s and sharing war de Tokyo), Jean-Francois Bodin (Architect, who
experiences, serve as appropriate cases for worked for the renovations projects of
comparison. MAMVP and Pompidou Centre), Christine Van
In addition to his own recollections and the Assche (Chief curator, Nouveaux Médias,
institutional histories revealed mainly by the Pompidou Center), Akiko Miki (Chief curator,

Documenting and Mediating The Museum: 79

A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum
Palais de Tokyo), Yoshihiro Nakatani (Curator, Portrait of a Girl Dressed in Blue (1641) by
KMMA), Aomi Okabe (Art critic), Yasumasa Johannes Cornelisz Verspronck almost as a
Morimura (Artist) and Miwa Yanagi (Artist). In character in the film. The scenes of the public
the film, they share their past experience debates over the architectural renovation cover
working with the museums and visions for the a wider range of people and seems to
future. The interviews are in a unilateral deliberately offer a facial close-up to someone
manner with the questions not articulated but who looks like a homeless person, or
implied. Kishimoto explained that Okabe, representative of those usually considered
Morimura, and Yanagi, were old acquaintances “outsiders”of museums (Oberhardt 2000, 106-
of his from previous documentary filmmaking 07 & 136-37). In Our Museum, the museum
and he had happened to obtain the opportunity space and the people who have actively
to interview them about their experiences and participated in the production of the space, i.e.
opinions towards the museums (2016). It seems curators, artists, architects, and artist critics,
that Kishimoto regards the voice of these are the stars.
people as a crucial part of Our Museum. Our Museum refrains from use of music in
While the people working with/at the contrast with the substantial employment of
museums gain strong attention, art works and the background music in The New
visitors are downplayed. While the nine figures Rijksmuseum and National Gallery that
are given with introductions, the film visually assists in playing out a dynamic atmosphere.
highlights two paintings as exhibits of the Despite the film’s strong autobiographical
Museum: Piano by Daizaburo Nakamura (1926) character, it seems to endeavor to achieve
and Asa (Morning) by Satoru Katsuta (1933). neutrality. As Kishimoto states in a newspaper
However they appear anonymously without report, he considers that music adds suggestive
any explanation such as titles and artists. meanings. The stories about the unrealized
Museum attenders are not much included, concepts, war experiences, struggles of the
either. They show up as visitors in the museum directors and curators, and depiction
exhibition scenes and audience of a lecture of the potential of the museum, are narrated in
about the history of KMMA given by the a static and one-way manner. It seems that this
curator, Nakatani. Except the thirty-second film endeavors to claim and represent the
edition of twenty-five one-word interviews, the truth, as one core characteristic of
general public is not given much facial documentaries (Aufderheide 2007, 5; Bruzzi
featuring and is almost absent. In contrast, The 2000, 39).
New Rijksmuseum highlights the painting, A final point is that the reception of the film

80 　　　　 東京大学大学院情報学環紀要　情報学研究　№92
remains largely in scenes related to for democracy and harmony, art critics
documentary films and art. It has been evaluate the space, and artists find inspirations.
screened during documentary and art festivals
or exhibitions and released as a DVD boxed 4) Placing Our Museum in the“mechanics of
set. Without assuming a specific audience, museum image construction”diagram
Kishimoto expects the histories re-examined Rather than adopting a singular voice, Our
and the diverse voices collected through this Museum achieves a synthesis of opinions across
film would help artists use the museum space sectors and national borders. Although the
more creatively and experts involved in the diversity and agency of the public is relatively
architectural renovation projects respect the weak, Our Museum encompasses all discourses
museums’ past (2016). Recently with ongoing in the previously proposed model rather than
discussions over KMMA’s architectural fitting as one of the four forces (Fig. 5). The
renovation and re-naming, Kishimoto hopes this two on the right are more personal with
work can assist in public comprehension of Kishimoto’s question,“what is an art museum”
museums not as something staying unchanged as the conception of the film, revealing a
but constantly evolving (ibid.). From the skeptical point of view, and recollections of his
newspapers, the reception seems to be positive, childhood memory showing a degree of
evaluating Our Museum as a pioneer work imagination towards KMMA with unusual
independently produced, exploring museums in architectural features. The varying voices
Japan (Fujimoto 2003; Mikami 2004). collected through interviews include “Art
To s u m m a r i z e , O u r M u s e u m t r i e s t o History”
, represented by Okabe and the
“document”museums in Kyoto and Paris via contemporary Japanese artists who express
incorporations of the director’s personal their belief that the museum is a special place,
memory, historical documents, and voices from and the“Institutional Discourse”given by Page
people who work in the fields of museum and other museum staff. Near the end of the
administration and art production and criticism. film, Page depicts a“living museum”portrayal
The image of the “museum” in this that asks vital questions related to our lives
documentary film intertwines the personal and such as who we are and why we exist. This
the institutional and connects histories with kind of public relationship although going down
visions towards the future. It constructs the to ontological questions reveals the cultural
museum as a place where museum institutions’ democratic visions to stay related
professionals and architects encounter with people’s life.
difficulties and insert efforts in building a place By positioning the film in the diagram, we

Documenting and Mediating The Museum: 81

A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum
can see that Our Museum offers a platform for cooperation, circulated in the festivals, film
various discourses to encounter each other. As market, and screening in the museum setting,
Murata notices, although a large quantity of i.e. Hyogo Prefectural Museum of Art and 21st
information about museums is circulated in the Century Museum of Contemporary Art,
society, there is actually little opportunity for Kanazawa, that illuminates the public
people to think about museums in their daily relationship of the museum. By selecting an
life (2014, 8). While The New Rijksmuseum is angle shifted away from the conventional focus
appraised as a “sociological work of art on museum collection to the space and people,
administration”, disclosing Dutch cultural this film offers an attempt to open up the
politics, Our Museum adopts less sociological museum discussion often confined within the
observation but presents a shared concern museum, interrogates what is a museum, and
among the Japanese curators, artists, and art leaves without a definitive answer but setting
critics over the history and space and an optimistic vision. This film proffers
Kishimoto’s meta-interpretation of the museum interpretations of the museum as a place loaded
(Harris 2013). Beyond the representations in the with varying contemplations rather than
film, it is actually the product itself, made merely a place for art appreciation or a work
possible with the museum professionals’ by an architect.

Fig.5.　To locate Our Museum in the diagram.

82 　　　　 東京大学大学院情報学環紀要　情報学研究　№92
5．CONCLUSION

This pa pe r e x a mi n e s O u r M u s e u m a n d Museum creates a polyphonic space where no

challenges the previous studies on film-world singular discourse from academia, institutions,
museums. It argues that this documentary film and popular media products dominates. It
manifests the possibility of integrating the serves as a tool to stage a museum image
personal, the institutional discourse and voices rendered on screen and invites further
from professionals in the art field. It presents discussions. One of the remaining tasks of this
an audiovisual image of the museum as a research is to develop thorough analysis of a
rendezvous for varying discourses. By adopting broader range of cases across cultures and
the form of film, a vehicle potentially capable of media forms.
reaching many, and enriching the narrative by
giving voice to selected groups of people, Our

Note:
1
Louagie examines thirty-three works (see Louagie 1996, 49-50). Jacobs’ target in his 2006 article includes six films of Alfred
Hitchcock, Blackmail (1929), Saboteur (1942), Strangers on a Train (1951), The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), Vertigo (1958),
and North by Northwest (1959). Jacobs’ 2009 article examines seventy-four films ranging from The Kiss (1929), Bands a part (1964),
to recent Hollywood films (see Jacobs 2009, 313-15). Oberhardt’s thesis (2000) focuses on five Hollywood films: She-Devil (1989),
Batman (1989), L.A. Story (1991), Born Yesterday (1993) and Absolute Power (1997).
2
Kishimoto himself uses “art documenter”, a term carrying more currency in Japanese language rather than English.
3
Tokyo National Museum website, “トーハク動画ナビ: 東京国立博物館140年の歩み”, http://www.tnm.jp/modules/r_db/index.
php?controller=list&t=movie_navi&id=4, accessed October 15 2016.
4
In the film, there is no literary explanation about the boy and the man. The author confirmed with Kishimoto during the
interview that the boy was his son, Ken Kishimoto, whose name appears in the cast list, and the man who appears in the final
scene is Kishimoto himself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aufderheide, Patricia. 2007. Documentary film: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, Tony. 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London and New York: Routledge.
Boast, Robin. 2011. “Neocolonial Collaboration: Museum as Contact Zone Revisited.” Museum Anthropology, 34:1, 56-70.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Alain Darbel. 1969. L’amour de l’art: les musees europeens et leur public, deuxieme edition revue et augmentee
(The Love of Art-European Art Museums and their Publics). Paris: Editions de Minuit. Translated by Caroline Beattie and Nick
Merriman. 1990. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
Brabazon, Tara. 2006. “Museums and popular culture revisited: Kevin Moore and the politics of pop.” Museum Management and
Curatorship, 21:4, 283-301.
Bruzzi, Stella. 2000. New documentary: a critical introduction. London: Routledge.

Documenting and Mediating The Museum: 83

A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum
Clifford, James. 1997. “Museums as Contact Zones.” Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, edited by
James Clifford. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 188-219.
Harris, Brandon. 2013. “The New Rijksmuseum-Dutch Masters: Oeke Hoogendijk on The New Rijksmuseum.” http://
filmmakermagazine.com/82933-dutch-masters-oeke-hoogendijk-on-the-new-rijksmuseum/, December 19, accessed October 12 2016.
Jacobs, Steven. 2006. “Sightseeing fright: Alfred Hitchcock’s monuments and museums.” The Journal of Architecture, 11:5, 595-602.
___. 2009. “Strange exhibitions: museums and art galleries in film.” Andre Jansson and Amanda Lagerkvist, eds., Strange Spaces:
Explorations in Mediated Obscurity. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 297-315.
Kishimoto, Yasushi 岸本康. 2002. 「OUR MUSEUM 制作記」. http://www.ufer.co.jp/about/adp/adp_pages/ADPnews_2003-1_j.html,
accessed October 12 2016.
____. 2016. Interview with the author via emails, October.
Louagie, Kimberly. 1996. “It Belongs in a Museum: The Images of Museums in American Film, 1985-1995.” The Journal of
American Culture, 19:4, 41-50.
Moore, Kevin. 1997. Museums and Popular Culture. London and New York: Leicester University Press.
Murata, Mariko 村田麻里子. 2013. 「ミュージアムから考える」.『ポピュラー文化ミュージアム：文化の収集・共有・消費』, Ishita
Saeko, Mariko Murata, and Chie Yamanaka 石田佐恵子, 村田麻里子, 山中千恵, eds. 京都：ミネルヴァ書房, 3-23.
____. 2014. 『思想としてのミュージアム』. 京都：人文書院.
Nichols, Bill. 2001. Introduction to documentary. Indiana University Press.
Oberhardt, Suzanne. 2000. “Frame within Frames: The Pedagogy of the Art Museum as Cultural Artefact.” College of Arts and
Architecture, Graduate School The Pennsylvania State University, Ph.D. thesis.
Pan, Mengfei. 2014. “Encountering and Incorporating Popular Cultures: Towards a Reconceptualization of the Museum as
Networked Media”. Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, University of Tokyo, Master’s thesis.
____. 2015. “What is NEW Museology: its Newness and Theoretical Strengths.” The Journal of The Museological Society of Japan,
41:1, 149-56.

Newspaper articles featuring Yasushi Kishimoto between 1994 and 2004:

Otagaki, Minoru 太田垣 實. 1994. 「小さな美術発信」, 『京都新聞』, 夕刊, 4月2日.
Mainichi Shimbun. 1994a. 「ビデオで残す」, 『毎日新聞』, 朝刊, 4月13日.
____. 1994b. 「京都の画廊経営者・岸本さんパリ・ベエンナーレに入選」, 『毎日新聞』, 朝刊, 8月16日.
Ishikawa, Kenji 石川 健次. 1994. 「画廊散歩 ウーファーギャラリー」, 『毎日新聞』, 朝刊, 10月1日.
Gaki, Takao 垣　孝夫. 1996. 「現代美術の粋 ビデオに記録」, 『読売新聞』, 夕刊, 7月12日.
Ohashi, Kazuhito 大橋 一仁. 1997. 「作品や作家がモチーフ 新たな魅力与える映像」, 『産経新聞』, 朝刊, 3月3日.
Arimoto, Tadahiro 有本 忠浩. 1997. 「作家の思想も映像で紹介 注目集めるアート・ドキュメンタリー」, 『毎日新聞』, 朝刊, 3月8日.
Kishimoto, Yasushi 岸本 康. 1997. 「映像で捕らえた現代美術 バイクに機材積み、制作風景や展覧会記録」, 『日本経済新聞』, 6月3日.
____. 1999. 「現代芸術のビデオ映像記録に思う」, 『京都新聞』, 7月31日.
Okamoto, Naoko 岡本 尚子. 1997. 「記録と創造 メディアから新しい美」, 『産経新聞』, 8月26日.
Kyoto Keizai Shimbun. 1998. 「熟成する映像 社会と芸術の回路を作る アート・ドキュメンター 岸本康さん」, 『京都経済新聞』, 4月
5日.
Yamada, Keiko 山田 桂子. 1999. 「新世紀人 現代アートの記録を後世へ」, 『産経新聞』, 8月30日.
Fujimoto, Noriko 藤本 紀子. 2003. 「国際美術映像祭に参加『Our Museum』岸本康監督」, 『日加タイムス』, 5月9日.
Mikami, Kimio 三上 喜美男. 2004.「映画監督の岸本康さん 美術館の面白さ」, 『神戸新聞』, 3月24日.

84 　　　　 東京大学大学院情報学環紀要　情報学研究　№92
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper is based on a previous presentation, “Between the Front and Backstage: Deconstructing Museum Representations in
Media (「晴れ舞台」と「舞台裏」の間―メディアにおけるミュージアム像に関する研究)” given at Cultural Typhoon 2015. The
author wants to thank the chair of the panel, “Media, Museum, Memory”, Dr. Masato Karashima from Kwansei Gakuin University
and Kelly McCormick from Yoshimi Seminar for sharing of information and thoughts. She would also like to express her deep
gratitude to Mr. Yasushi Kishimoto for agreeing to the interview. She always owes a great debt to her supervisor, Prof. Shunya
Yoshimi for continued support and encouragement.　

潘　夢斐（ぱん・めんふぇい）
［生年月］1988 年 1 月
［出身大学または最終学歴］シドニー大学 Master of Museum Studies; 東京大学学際情報学府アジア情報社会修士
［専攻領域］ミュージアム・スタディーズ
［主たる著書・論文］（3 本まで、タイトル・発行誌名あるいは発行機関名）
「Whose is the Museum? A Case Study of The Tokyo Imperial Household Museum Competition in 1931」,
Proceedings of 11th International Symposium on Architectural Interchanges in Asia, pp. 920-25, 2016 年 9 月 .
「『ニュー・ミュジオロジ』とはなにか：その新しさと理論的な強み」,『博物館学雑誌』,41:1, pp. 149-56, 2015 年 12 月 .
「Redesigning the Physical Boundary: The Emergence of the Glass Age of Museum Architecture from the
1990s」,『東京大学大学院情報学環紀要』, 89, pp. 99-118, 2015 年 10 月 .
［所属］東京大学大学院 学際情報学府 アジア情報社会博士課程
［所属学会］全日本博物館学会 , 日本都市計画学会

Documenting and Mediating The Museum: 85

A Case Study of the Documentary Film, Our Museum
 Documenting and Mediating The Museum:
A Case Study of the Documentary Film,
Our Museum

Mengfei PAN*

The museum exists on multiple levels. In addition to policies, legislations, physical buildings, and
academic discourse, the museum is also presented in various kinds of media products. This research
focuses on the museum in the documentary film, Our Museum (2002) directed by Yasushi Kishimoto.
It argues that this work plays a role in documenting the museum, and more importantly, mediating
the often-contrasting museum images that various societal players tend to construct. It provides a
platform to raise questions about the raison d'être of the museum by interweaving personal memories
and visions with the registered histories of institutions and countries.

This research adopts an interdisciplinary approach to fill the gap between film studies and museum
studies. Through textual analysis of Our Museum (2002) and a few other examples including The
New Rijksmuseum (2008; sequel in 2014) and National Gallery (2014) and contextual studies of the
filmmaking process, it finds that previous theories fail to grasp the precise museum image in these
documentary films. By examining whether Our Museum coheres with previous studies on film-world
museums, this paper argues that rather than deifying or demonizing museums, it achieves
constructing the museum as a place in which varying personal thoughts are instilled. By adopting the
form of film, a vehicle potentially capable of reaching many, and enriching the narrative by giving
voice to selected groups of people, Our Museum creates a polyphonic space rather than inclining
towards any of the imageries from academia, institutions, and popular media products. It serves as a
tool to stage a negotiated museum image on screen and invites further discussions.

Ph.D. student, ITASIA Course, Prof. YOSHIMI Shunya Laboratory, Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, The
University of Tokyo
Key Words：museum in media, museum in documentary films, museums in Japan, museum studies

86 　　　　 東京大学大学院情報学環紀要　情報学研究　№92