A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve: Studia Ethnographica 6. (Szeged, 2008)

Hanneleena Hieta: Ethnographer s and three realities - how agency and institutional tradition intertwine in the museum setting

these variations of building a museum house were generally known in Hungarian museum practice prior to Opusztaszer. Summary: Individual choices and material imperatives In the above case study I have demonstrated how the museum of Opusztaszer was built based on three realities: these realities were, firstly, the actual folk architecture as it once had been (tradition), secondly, the conventions of ethnographic museums in Hungary (institution) and, thirdly, the social and material realities of the Hungarian countryside (material imperative). Interestingly, the ethnographer and the museum-professional weave between these predicaments in a creative process. Let us first take a closer look at tradition, which seems to be the most natural basis for representation in the museum. The museum professional has a thorough knowledge of this tradition. The reverence towards tradition is further demonstrated by the fact that the professionals were going to great lengths to secure the authenticity of their choices through scrupulous inventories, interviews and documentation. However, the professional's attitude towards the tradition is different than it would be in the case of a genuine house-builder in the past. It is up to the professional to make decisions on where to apply their knowledge of tradition. In many ways, the professional is "above" tradition in that he or she sees beyond it. This is possible because of the time-span that a museum can cover. It is in the hands of the professional to decide which time period the selected house should represent. It is also in the hands of the professional to decide at what point the recreation is genuine enough. This was naturally not possible for the peasant builder, whose house always existed in the present and served the function of a home, not as a representative of the past reality of an entire social group. Therefore, the folk builder would not have had the option - nor seen any reason - to recreate a previous floor plan by removing one wall, or to collect disparate buildings of the same age to create one farm. If the folk-builder would not consider certain choices meaningful, it raises the question of why and within what frame of thought they would still make sense. It is here that the museum as a meaning-creating institution steps in. The choices the museum professionals have made in the case of Opusztaszer, just as with in any Hungarian open-air museum, make perfect sense and belong to the framework of the museum institution. In the lengthy discussion at the beginning of this article I questioned the ability of an individual to generate individual choices regardless the institution. It is interesting to notice that it is precisely within the framework of the institution that the museum professionals appear at their most creative. It is the framework and pre-existing procedure patterns of Hungarian museum ethnography that release the creative energies and make innovative thought possible. Let me prove my point in light of the above examples. The Szeged farm as an entity did not exist prior to its recreation in the park, the Makó house was recreated because it was the favorite house of the museum professional, and the Szeged peasant house had ceased to exist before it was re-created in the park. In each of these cases the museum professional was free to make a choice, which was supported by the institution itself.