詩意的科學－法國國立自然史博物館《隕石：天地之間》特展的藝術介入

Poetic Science: Art Intervention in a Temporary Exhibition ＂Meteorites - Between Heaven and Earth＂ at the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, France

10.6686/MuseQ.201901_33(1).0003

張婉真(Wan-Chen Chang)

科學展覽 ； 藝術介入 ； 多重模態 ； 法國國立自然史博物館 ； 隕石 ； scientific exhibition ； art intervention ； multimodality ； Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle ； meteorite

博物館學季刊

33卷1期（2019 / 01 / 01）

55 - 73+75

繁體中文

近年國際間出現多項在科學展覽中加入藝術作品展出的案例，顯示科學展覽新的展覽概念與發展方向。本文以法國國立自然史博物館自2017年10月起於大演化館地下一樓的特展廳所舉辦的《隕石：天地之間》特展為個案，分析當代科學展覽加入藝術作品展出的目的、手法與意義。在研究方法上，本文從敘事研究進一步納入多重模態的觀點與分析法，以建構分析展覽的架構，並透過文獻回顧、實地參訪與策展人訪談等方法，取得研究材料。文章首先說明本文個案的科學敘事，其次加入展覽內藝術介入的說明；之後分析科學與藝術之間如何連結形成互文性，以及觀眾的接受；最後結語處則歸納這項展覽對於未來的啟示。文章旨在論述當代的科學展覽如何從傳統的理性科學知識的傳遞，轉而重視感性面的情感投注；而藝術介入的手法又如何得以勾引出科學物件潛藏的美學價值，令觀眾從另一種詩意的層面再視科學。

In recent years, there have been many science exhibitions that have included works of art, demonstrating a new exhibition concept and developmental direction. In this paper, the temporary exhibition, ＂Meteorites-Between Heaven and Earth＂ that began in October of 2017, in the Grand Gallery of Evolution at the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, serves as a case study. Narrative research and integration of perspectives and multimodal approaches are applied to construct a framework for analyzing exhibitions. Through literature review, on-site interviews and discussions with the curator, research materials were obtained. The scientific narrative of this exhibition is first explained, followed by a discussion of artistic intervention in exhibitions. In addition, the linking of science and art to form intertextuality and the acceptance of the audience are explored. This paper concludes with a summary of what this exhibition reveals about the future. The aim of this paper is to discuss how contemporary science exhibitions have changed from the transmission of traditional and rational scientific knowledge to an emphasis on perceptual and emotional engagement. Moreover, the results of this study reveal how artistic intervention draws out the latent aesthetic value of scientific objects, enabling audiences to view science based on its poetic quality.

1. (2010).Think Art Act Science. Artists-in-Labs.Barcelona:Arts Santa Monica.
2. (2005).Reshaping Museum Space: Architecture, Desigh, Exhibitions.
3. Anyfandi, G.(2010).A social semiotic framework for the analysis of science exhibits.Science Exhibitions: Communication and Evaluation,Edinburgh:
4. Arends, B.(2009).Contemporary arts in the Natural History Museum London: Symbiosis and disruption.Journal of Science Communication,8(2),C02.
5. Belcher, M.(1991).Exhibitions in Museums.London:Leicester University Press.
6. Casini, S.(2010).Art in science centres: A challenge to visitors and evaluators.Science Exhibitions: Communication and Evaluation,Edinburgh:
7. Council for Science and Technology(2001).Imagination and Understanding: A Report on the Arts and Humanities in Relation to Science and Technology.Great Britain:Council for Science and Technology.
8. Drioli, A.(2006).Contemporary aesthetic forms and scientific museology.Journal of Science Communication,5(1)
9. Drioli, A.(2009).Science centres around the world see unrest for art and science in society.Journal of Science Communication,8(2),C01.
10. Eastes, R.-E.(2011).La dialectique art-science-tecnicités dans la médiation scientifique.La science en culture : Le détour par l’art,Paris:
11. Faury, M.(2011).De la nature du rapport entre art et science dans la culture scientifique.La science en culture: Le détour par l’art,Paris:
12. Filippoupoliti, A. (Ed.)(2010).Science Exhibitions: Curation and Design.Edinburgh:MuseumsEtc.
13. Friedman, A.(2010).The evolution of the science museum.Physics Today,October,45-51.
14. Garcia, O.(Ed.),Flores, N.(Ed.),Spotti, M.(Ed.)(2016).Oxford Handbook of Language and Society.Oxford University Press.
15. Glinkowski, P.,Bamford, A.(2009).Insight and Exchange: An Evaluation of the Wellcome Trust’s Sciart Programme.London:The trustee of the Wellcome Trust.
16. Gounelle, M.(2017).Météorites - Entre ceil et terre.Paris:Editions du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle.
17. Halliday, M. A. K.(1973).Explorations in the Functions of Language.London:Edward Arnold.
18. Hooper-Greenhill, E.(Ed.)(1999).The Education Role of Museum.London:Routledge.
19. Insulander, E.(2007).The exhibition as a multimodal pedagogical text.NaMu, Making National Museums Program, Setting the Frames,Norrköping, Sweden:
20. Kress, G.,van Leeuwen, T.(1996).Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.London:Routledge.
21. Kress, G.,van Leeuwen, T.(2001).Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication.London:Arnold.
22. Kress, G.,van Leeuwen, T.(2006).Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.London:Routledge.
23. Latour, B.(1993).We Have Never Been Modern.Havard University Press.
24. Law, J. (Ed.)(1986).Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge.London:Routledge.
25. McManus, P. M.(1992).Topics in museums and science education.Studies in Science Education,20,157-182.
26. Michard, J.-G.,Raulin-Cerceau, F.(2003).Les météorites: deux expositions à 30 ans d’intervalle.ASTER,36,123-137.
27. O’Halloran, K. L.(1999).Interdependence, interaction and metaphor in multi-semiotic texts.Social Semiotics,9(3),317-354.
28. O’Toole, M.(1994).The Language of Displayed Art.London:Leicester University Press.
29. Pang, K. M. A.(2006).Making history in from colony to nation: A multimodal analysis of a museum exhibition in Singapore.Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives,London:
30. Ramani, D.,Drioli, A.(2011).L’important, c’est de participer: L’art dans les musées de science.La science en culture: Le détour par l’art,Paris:
31. Ravelli, L. J.(2000).Beyond shopping: Contructing the Sydney Olympics in three-dimensional text.Text,20(4),489-515.
32. Redler, H.(2009).From interventions to interactions: Science Museum Arts Projects’ history and the challenges of interpreting art in the Science Museum.Journal of Science Communication,8(2),C04.
33. Robins, C.(2013).Curious lessons in the museum. The Pedagogic Potential of Artists’ Interventions.Surrey:Ashgate.
34. Roppola, T.(2012).Designing for the Museum Visitor Experience.New York:Routledge.
35. Waller, L.(2016).Curating actor-network theory: Testing object-oriented sociology in the Science Museum.Museum and Society,14(1),193-206.
36. Yaneva, A.(2009).Staging scientific controversies: A gallery test on science museums’ interactivity.Public Understanding of Science,18,79-90.
37. 林志成（譯）,劉藍玉（譯）,Snow, C. P.(2000).兩種文化.臺北:貓頭鷹出版社.

1. 陳宏志(2022)。談博物館蒐藏礦物原石可能遭遇的法律議題－以所有權為核心。博物館學季刊，36(4)，99-107+109。
2. 林琮穎(2022)。再現古蹟歷史軌跡－國立臺灣博物館古蹟修復展覽評論。博物館學季刊，36(2)，121-139。
3. 張婉真(2020)。藝術介入科學展覽的知識再製與訊息溝通－「島嶼浮塵：PM2.5視界」特展的個案研究。博物館學季刊，34(1)，9-41+43。