Abstract
Museums and mausoleums are linked by more than a phonetic association. Theodor W. Adorno noticed this in his reflection on the nature of museums already in the middle of the last century. The word "museum" (or "museum") has an unpleasant undertone, writes Adorno because we use it to denote objects that die or are dead, that lack living relations to the living present.
In our contribution, we ask whether this deadening effect is necessary to the so-called "museum effect" or where to look for its origin. In the theory of the museum experience, two essentially contradictory answers can be found: One blames the labels (in the broad sense of the word, i.e., any accompanying, explanatory information), which are said to be merely a redundant reiteration of the obvious, or, on the contrary, a centrifugal, distracting layer of information. On the other hand, the experience offered by museums is said to be enhanced by the freedom of the gaze, which can freely indulge in the visual attractiveness of the objects on display, unfettered by accompanying data. In contrast, there is an opinion that precisely this accompanying information can provide the missing context to things taken out of their original environment, indicate their mutual relationships, and, through them, restore their meaning. Can we take the third route?