Museum Setting 44!

In 1963 Munro wrote that museums were not used for the purpose of investigation and even now a museum is still a rare place to conduct research studies:

The schools, museums, studios, and other places where art is taught provide an excellent testing-ground for psychological investigation in that field. At present, they are not much used for that purpose. (Munro, 1963, p.280)

Field experiments conducted in real situations are difficult to perform since unpredictable events might happen. Therefore, the researcher would not have enough control of the study variables. However, research has been done in looking at artworks in museums (Smith & Smith, 2001, 2006; Tinio & Smith, 2014; Tröndle & Tschacher, 2012;

Tschacher et al., 2012). Recent studies have demonstrated that viewing art in a museum is a more positive experience than viewing art outside of a museum, in a laboratory (Brieber et al., 2014; Brieber et al., 2015a). Bitgood et al. (1990) and Harvey et al. (1998) studied visitors’ immersion in museums. Moreover, Tschacher et al. (2012) confirmed that artworks are presented in the museum setting is relevant for visitor responses to art. Falk and Dierking (1992, 2013) introduced in the literature the museum visit studied as a whole experience.

Museum Experience

Falk and Direking (2013) endorsed that museum visits result from an intersection of the following contexts:

1. Personal context: every museum visitor is unique. Therefore, a visitor enters a gallery with previous life experiences, knowledge, expectations and motivations. 2. Sociocultural context: every museum visitor has a cultural background (language,

economical status, country of origin, etc.). People might consider a museum visit valuable or not depending on their cultural background. Therefore, individuals’ values could be in line with the cultural institution or not. Also, people visit a museum in a group of friends, in a family group with children, by pairs, or alone. Social interactions in the context of the museum would also affect the museum experience.

3. Physical context: every museum has a different context (architecture, design, objects on display, etc.). The building distribution, how objects are presented in the galleries and the general ambience are elements that would influence visitors.

museum setting, but also what visitors experience before, during and after a museum visit.

Before the museum experience

People visit museums with certain attitudes, interests, expectations and motivations. Falk and Dierking (2013) after observing and interviewing visitors in museums in the United Stated created the following categories (table 6) that related visit motivation with visitor’s identity.

Table 6: Falk’s identity-related visit motivations

Categories Definition

Explorers Visitors who are curiosity-driven with a generic interest in the

content of the museum. They expect to find something that will grab their attention and fuel their curiosity and learning.

Facilitators Visitors who are socially motivated. Their visit is primarily

focused on enabling the learning and experience of others in their accompanying social group.

Professionals/Hobbyists Visitors who feel a close tie between the museum content and

their professional or hobbyist passions. Their visits are typically motivated by a desire to satisfy a specific content-related objective.

Experience Seekers Visitors who are motivated to visit because they perceive the

museum as an important destination. Their satisfaction primarily derives from the mere fact of having been there and done that.

Rechargers Visitors who are primarily seeking a contemplative, spiritual,

and/or restorative experience. They see the museum as a refuge from the work-a-day world or as a confirmation of their religious/spiritual beliefs.

Source: Falk & Dierking (2013, p.47-48)

As we have seen, different motivations move people to enter a museum. Therefore, museums need to have the capability to empathize with all of them and cover their needs. Moreover, the fact that a person was taken to a museum as a child (in family visits or school trips) has an impact on their adult museum visits (Ellenbogen, 2002; Ellenbogen et al., 2004; Falk & Dierking, 1997; McManus, 1993).

Mastandrea et al. (2007) compared visitors in a traditional and in a contemporary art museum: in the Borghese Museum in Rome and the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice. They found significant differences in visitors’ motivations and expectations. Concerning motivations, visitors wanted to visit the traditional art museum to be culturally enriched. Instead, visitors visiting the contemporary art museum wanted to visit it with the idea of experiencing beauty and the museum environment. As for the expectations, visitors in the Borghese Museum were willing to learn and look at new pieces while visitors in the Peggy Guggenheim Collection were willing to see artworks that they already knew (repeated the visit) and also said they were expecting to have enjoyable experience. Besides, visitors in the traditional art museum were more knowledgeable and visitors in the contemporary art museum were more emotional and oriented to pleasure. Demographic characteristics also differed; Guggenheim visitors had a higher educational level, they were more used to frequenting museums, and preferred this kind of modern art. Contrarily, Borghese visitors preferred to look at ancient art. In 2009, Mastandrea and colleagues did a similar study with other contemporary and traditional art museums and the findings supported the results of the 2007 study. Thus, people’s motivations and expectations are related to the museums they visit.

During the museum experience

Visitors tend to satisfy their primary needs when entering a museum. This means that the goal normally is to visit one or many exhibitions but, before or after that, people would need to use museum services -e.g. toilets, museum restaurant, or take an outdoor walk (if there is an outdoor space at the museum)-. Also, what is important is the accessible design in terms of physical accessibility and educational concepts, the museum taking into consideration all visitors’ needs, incorporating Universal Design (AAM, 2010).

Pitman and Hirzy (2010) observed 1500 visitors in Dallas Museum of Art to see how they engaged with art during their museum experiences and they created the following typology of museum visitors:

Table 7: Pitman and Hirzy’s typology of museum visitors

Categories Definition

Observers - Lower art knowledge. - First time visitors. Less engaged and less

comfortable with their art experience. - Require basic and clear information about the

artwork.

Participants - Some interest and art knowledge.

- Personal connection with art through other

creative activities like music, dance, etc. - Assistance is needed in order to understand -the

artworks.

Independents - Strong background in the arts. - Emotional connection and close looking.

- Comfortable with the art experience, less guidance to interpret the art.

Enthusiasts - Strong art knowledge, amateurs or artists.

- Very engaged with the artworks. - Interested in the techniques and materials the

artist used to create the artwork.

Source: Adapted from Pitman & Hirzy (2010)

Pitman and Hirzy (2010) confirmed that different categories showed different degrees of comfort in the museum (e.g. ‘enthusiasts’ visitors were the most emotional and the more comfortable in the museum environment). Museums should not underestimate the typologies of museum visitors since they contribute to learning and meaning making in the museum experience. These typologies could help museum educators in planning activities to engage different types of visitors with art.

After the museum experience

After the museum experience visitors may remember the experience at least during the very same day, and hopefully the experience will result in learning outcomes. Rarely visitors are asked to complete a questionnaire at the museum exit door. Therefore, audience research is needed to know about museum audiences and attend visitor and non-visitor needs.

2.9. Labels

Labels are placards or information on the walls of the museum near a piece. Labels are intended to guide viewers towards greater understanding, to help them find meaning in the works, and to help them appreciate and enjoy the museum experience (Serrell, 1983, 1996; Serrell et al., 2013). Labels tend to be relatively short (max. 75 words) and include interpretations, pictures and open questions for people to think about and make their own meanings.

Research about visitor motivation for reading labels has shown that people do read labels (McManus, 1990; Screven, 1992) and that the titles and information help them in understanding and appreciating the artworks (Borun & Miller, 1980; Larsen, 2002; Leder et al., 2006; Millis, 2001; Russell & Milne, 1997). When a label accompanied a painting, the visitors’ enjoyment increased (Temme, 1992). In Temme’s cross-cultural study in the Netherlands and United States, visitors preferred the longer versions of labels. Nonetheless, a negative correlation between the amount of information and the aesthetic appreciation resulted. When more information was given the viewing time did not increase. For that reason, the author stated that the time spent viewing an artwork also influenced the aesthetic appreciation.