Mihai B.
Google
Between Mission Statements and Reality: A Visit to MNIT
MNIT describes itself as the guardian of the outstanding values of Transylvanian civilisation. According to its leadership, the museum still follows the principles laid down by its founders 150 years ago: knowledge and promotion of Transylvanian culture, the material development of its collections, and, crucially, a current process of rethinking how culture can be brought closer to an ever-changing public. It is a reassuring, well-crafted institutional message. It is also largely disconnected from the reality on the ground.
At the time of my visit, roughly three quarters of the museum were closed, with no advance notice, no explanation on site, and no clear communication of any kind. There are no usable maps, no coherent signage, and no visitor logic. You are left to wander a monumental building guessing what is accessible and what is not. If this is part of a “rethinking” process, it is one that entirely excludes the visitor.
The only space open in December 2025 was the lapidarium. Here, the gap between declared mission and actual practice becomes impossible to ignore. Labels are minimal to the point of being useless: object type, place of origin, and a vague date such as “2nd–11th century BC.” There is no explanation of function, no archaeological or historical context, no attempt at reconstruction or visualisation. Culture is not promoted; it is simply placed in a room and left there. This is not interpretation. It is storage with better lighting.
The museum also speaks about addressing a “public in constant change.” In reality, accessibility for elderly visitors or people with disabilities is poor to non-existent, both physically and intellectually. There is virtually no updated educational material aimed at the general public. The implicit message is clear: this institution still speaks to a narrow, initiated audience, not to society at large.
Finally, the relationship with the visitor completes the picture. Communication at the ticket desk is awkward and defensive, often marked by arrogance, a sense of institutional superiority, and an unnecessarily combative tone. Instead of acting as a bridge between the museum and the public, staff interactions reinforce the impression that the visitor is an inconvenience rather than the reason the museum exists.
MNIT claims continuity with its founders and an openness toward the future. What it currently offers is neither. It operates within a rigid, outdated institutional mindset, where mission statements function as public-relations exercises rather than as guiding principles translated into practice. Until access, interpretation, inclusivity, and basic respect for the visitor are treated as core responsibilities, the museum’s lofty rhetoric will remain exactly that: rhetoric.
