Paper short abstract:

Religious collections are multi-layered due to their tangible and intangible characteristics. These influence museum policies and are strongly connected to the museum professional, who is a product of its own time and background. An analysis of a museum of religion and its place in society.

Paper long abstract:

Religious collections are multi-layered because of the intrinsic qualities of the religious object itself. These objects enter museum collections by various reasons: art-historical, social, cultural and religious motivations play a crucial role in the process of collecting. Also, the way religious collections develop is very much connected with historical and contemporary developments in society. In a time of profound religious changes in society, religious museums see themselves confronted with new challenges. Secularisation and individual ways of practicing one's belief are changing religious landscapes.

Using the Dutch museum St. Catherine's Convent (Museum Catharijneconvent) as a case of study, the historical development of a religious collection will be shown, with a strong focus on contemporary ambitions and motivations for collectional development and exhibtion-making. How are historical and contemporary social developments influencing policy making? What role do personal interests, convictions and ambitions have in collection- and audience development? In answering these questions, the way museum professionals see themselves as part of a (religious) community will be an imporant part of research. Is St. Catherine's Convent a museum about 'us' or 'them'? Answers to this question will provide the possibility to reflect upon the place of religious museums in the context of ethnography and the museological debate on heritage and identity.

Finally, museums of religion often have to find a balance between the profane and the sacral. Museum professionals see themselves confronted with certain restrictions and governmental demands. Visions and imaginaries are often confronted with reality. This is something that seems to be a gap in the museological theory and debate.