Museum visitor preferences and intentions in constructing aesthetic experience

POETICS ELSEVIER

Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

Museum visitor preferences and intentions in constructing aesthetic experience Jeffrey K. Smith *, Lisa F. Wolf The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Education, I000 Fifth Avenue, New York City, NY 10028, USA

Abstract Visitors to art museums vary on a number of a dimensions related to how they construct their museum experience. The visiting preferences and intentions of a sample of visitors to the Metropolitan Museum of Art were examined by having them respond to a survey as they entered the Museum. Visitors were presented with a set of nine contrasting statements (e.g., " I know how I like to look at art" and " I would like to learn more about how to look at art".) separated by a six-point scale. Responses to the statement pairs indicated wide variability on items concerning whether visitors liked to look at many works of art in depth, or a few works briefly; whether they preferred to discuss works with others, or look alone; whether they preferred a linear or global organization; whether they wanted to learn more about how to look at art, or felt their skills were adequate. A series of regression equations looked at the relationship of age, education, self-reported knowledge of art, and frequency of Museum visitation to responses to the statement pairs. Knowledge of art was consistently the most important predictor.

1. Introduction A t a r e c e n t s e n i o r s t a f f m e e t i n g at T h e M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m o f Art, the c h i e f c u r a t o r o f E u r o p e a n P a i n t i n g s m a d e a p r e s e n t a t i o n on the a c q u i s i t i o n o f a p o r t r a i t by

~"The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Kent Lydecker, Seth Thompson, and Phoebe Park Styron with ediiorial assistance, data collection, and analysis. * Correspondence to: Jeffrey K. Smith, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA. i Also at: Psychology Department, Felician College, Lodi, NJ 07644, USA. 0304-422X/96/$15.00 © 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSDI 0 3 0 4 - 4 2 2 X ( 9 5 ) 0 0 0 0 6 - 2

220

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

Delacroix. The work was a realistic painting of a matronly woman of the era; independently, the authors of this article were somewhat surprised at the enthusiasm of the curator for the work. Since neither of us are art historians, but have worked at the Met for over five years, we have learned to withhold judgment on such matters. Over the next twenty minutes we learned that Delacroix may well have been the illegitimate child of Talleyrand; that the matron had essentially raised Delacroix after the death of his parents and that he loved this woman dearly; that apparently Napoleon had also loved her - several decades earlier and in a substantially different context; that Delacroix had prepared the canvas for painting himself (his fingerprints can be seen on the rear of the frame) and somewhat impatiently had commenced painting prior to the complete drying of the preparatory medium, which had given the work a certain luminosity; that unlike most works of the era, this painting has not been transferred to a new canvas and therefore has been spared the ironing process which flattens the paint. The presentation transformed the work from one which probably would not have captured the attention of either of us into one which required a very careful look. This event serves as a useful example for considering the experience of an individual in an art museum. When an individual encounters a work of art in a museum, three distinct elements interact to determine the nature of the encounter: the work of art, the presentation in the museum, and the individual. The role of the work of art in this interaction is probably not the proper domain of the social scientist and is certainly well beyond the scope of this research; however, the remaining elements are most appropriate topics for empirical investigation. The nature of the presentation of the work of art in the museum has been the focus of museum specialists for a number of years. Vallance considers the art museum to be a "public curriculum of orderly images" (Vailance, 1993: 4); this is a particularly apt metaphor from the perspective of the museum educator. Museum specialists frequently focus on the exhibition, the gallery, and even on the museum as their unit of analysis. As Vallance points out, although the museum will highlight certain important works, the nature of museums engenders a focus on collections of works. The collection forms a curriculum for the visitor, but even with the curriculum provided, the visitor will interpret and define that curriculum according to his or her own needs. In a similar vein, Carr sees cultural institutions as structures for cognitive change in individuals (Carr, 1992). Museums, as well as other cultural institutions, are highly ordered organizations with a carefully considered logic in both the presentation of objects and the information which is offered to the visitor. Carr, in agreement with Vallance, states that into this order steps the individual with his or her own background, desires, accumulation of knowledge and experience, and approaches to museum visitation (Cart, 1991). What happens when the communicative intent of the artist and of the museum meet the eye of the visitor? Is the potential to transform one's image of oneself realized as Carr (1991) suggests is possible? That is, do individuals leave an art museum thinking differently about themselves as opposed to how they think about art? Does the experience turn into one in which a sense of time and space are given

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

221

over to the interaction, as is elegantly postulated by Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson (1990)? Does the visitor ultimately undergo a restorative experience which enables h i m / h e r to retum productively to their lives (Kaplan et al., 1993)? Or might it be the case that the visitor makes mental stores of the works which can be returned to later, for leisurely contemplation, an emotional amortization of the aesthetic encounter? These are intriguing possibilities, and several have empirical data which argue for their validity, but they are not the direct concern of the research presented here. Our aims are more modest; we focus in this study on one third of the elements of the aesthetic encounter in museums: the visitor. To better understand what kinds of experiences visitors have in museums, it would be worthwhile to have a better idea of who those visitors are, what their preferences are, and what range of visitors exist. In the winter 1994 meeting of the Association of Art Museum Directors, Paul DiMaggio and Michael Spock, in different addresses, summarized much of the state of current knowledge about visitors to art museums. Reporting results from the National Endowment for the Arts survey, "Arts Participation in America: 19821992" (Robinson, 1994), DiMaggio (this volume) informed the museum directors as to what we know about the visiting public. What we know is substantial, enlightening, and pleasantly counterintuitive at a number of turns. To begin, the proportion of Americans visiting art museums has increased from 1982 to 1992. Not only is visitation up overall, it is also up among men, visitors age 18-24, and African Americans. Analysis of these data further reveals that the art museum visitor is not so different from the general public in regard to a variety of cultural, religious, and moral attitudes. The findings from this research, particularly with regard to the demographics, echo other studies, both at the national and regional levels (Harris, 1992; Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993), and at individual institutions (e.g., Smith and Wolf, 1993; Brunner, 1994). Spock (1994) provided a counterpoint to DiMaggio by exploring what we do not know about art museum visitors, in particular what we do not know about them as they enter the museum. Just as our knowledge base is substantial and impressive, so is our ignorance base. Although we know who our visitors are, we have little idea of what they will do as they walk in the door, or what their preferences are for what they will find in the museum, or how they will find it. Do they want to look at art alone, or discuss it with others? Do they prefer a linear organization in exhibitions, or a more holistic or global presentation? Are they concrete thinkers, or abstract thinkers? What kinds of museums do they prefer to visit? To pose the questions presented above does not mean that there has been no research of a behavioral or psychological orientation on museum visitors. Indeed, research on fatigue in museums can be found as early as 1916, before the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the American Museum of Natural History had celebrated their fiftieth birthdays (Gilman, 1916). A series of studies were conducted in the late twenties and early thirties by Melton and Robinson (Melton, 1933, 1935; Robinson, 1928, 1930, 1931). Melton's work focused on the relationship between the physical environment of the museum, the layout of exhibitions, and

222

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996)219-238

visitor behavior. Robinson studied museum fatigue and the holding power of various exhibit designs. Current research in the field which has come to be known as "visitor studies" has examined visitor demographics (e.g., Bitgood, 1986; Hood, 1983), the evaluation of exhibition effectiveness (e.g., Borun, 1977; Griggs, 1984; Oestreicher, 1986), and efforts to examine learning in museums (e.g., Chase, 1975; Screven, 1990). This work is growing and making a strong contribution to theoretical development as well as practice in museums. Given these efforts, it may be somewhat surprising that Spock's questions are unanswered. And yet the fact is that we do not have a good sense of who our visitors are beyond the basics. The need to explore these questions provides the impetus for this research. We were interested in finding out how people like to look at art and what sorts of visiting practices they prefer. Do they like to look at many works for a brief period of time each, or at a few for longer periods? Do they like to discuss works with others? When they walk into the museum, do they have a plan for the day, or are they open to the possibilities that present themselves? Are they at the museum to learn or to enjoy themselves? In addition to looking at responses to these and some additional questions, we wanted to look at the variation in responses to see if preferences were related to factors such as age, education, frequency of visitation to museums, and knowledge of art history.

2. Methodology 2.1. The Metropolitan's Office of Research and Evaluation The opportunity to collect the data for this research stems from the establishment of an Office of Research and Evaluation at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in the fall of 1988. Prior to the establishment of the Office, the Museum had occasionally commissioned studies of particular exhibits or programs. It was decided that an in-house capability would be economical in the long run and would allow for a wider variety of studies to be conducted. The Office is operated with two part-time researchers (the authors of this article), both of whom have full-time faculty positions at local universities. Data are collected through the use of a team of Museum volunteers who work specifically for the Office. In addition to the research reported here, recent studies have focused on: (1) The economic impact of the Museum on the City and State of New York, (2) Educational outcomes of major special exhibitions, (3) Characteristics of object labels which influence legibility for low-vision and elderly visitors, and (4) Preferences on special ticketing for special exhibitions, pricing and characteristics of exhibition catalogues, and the use of brochures in exhibitions.

2.2. Sample and data collection procedures The results presented in this article are based on a survey of 609 visitors entering The Metropolitan Museum of Art during April, 1994. The research was conducted

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

223

as part of an on-going survey program of the Museum. Survey sampling was conducted on each of the six days of the week that the Museum is open (Tuesday through Sunday). The times of day selected were designed to make the final sample representative of attendance patterns. Subjects were solicited to participate in the survey as they entered the Great Hall of the Museum. Every fourth visitor who appeared to be over the age of 18 was invited to participate. Individuals completed the survey on their own with a survey worker available to answer questions. The survey took roughly ten minutes to complete. All participation was voluntary and respondents did not receive a gratuity for their participation. Of the visitors solicited to participate, 78% agreed to complete the survey. This figure is typical for the survey program at the Metropolitan. When individuals declined to participate, the survey worker recorded (through observation) the gender of the individual, an estimated age of the individual, the number of persons in the individual's group, and whether the visitor seemed to be a non-native speaker of English. This last observation was used to estimate the proportion of refusals coming from international visitors (which would include not only individuals who simply chose not to participate, but also individuals who felt that their command of English was insufficient to complete the survey). In comparing the data on refusals to participants, the only area of discrepancy concerned the proportion of international visitors who refused participation to those who participated. Of the refusals, 31% appeared to be non-native English speakers (and were categorized as international visitors) compared to 20% among the participants. 2.2. The survey instrument

The survey instrument consisted of eight questions, six of which concerned demographic characteristics such as age, gender, occupation, levels of income and education, frequency of visitation, and group size; one question asked respondents to rate their knowledge of art on a scale of one (little formal knowledge) to 10 (a true expert). The final question presented nine contrasting pairs of statements, such as " I know what I'll do during my visit" and " I have no plans yet for my visit". For each pair of contrasting statements, respondents were instructed to place a check in one of the six spaces separating each pair that most closely reflected their views about themselves. These contrasting statement pairs are presented with response percentages in the Results Section (see Fig. 1, section 3.2).

3. Results

The results are reported in three sections. In the first section, a series of demographic variables are presented to provide a picture of the typical visitor to the Metropolitan. Following this, the simple responses to the contrasting statement pairs are discussed. Finally, a series of regression analyses and accompanying figures are presented to explore the findings in more depth.

224

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996)219-238

Table 1 Self-reported age Age

Percent

under 24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65and over

23 22 21 18 10 6

3.1. Characteristics of the sample Visitors to art museums are often thought to be elderly, wealthy, well-educated individuals, predominantly women, and predominantly Caucasian. Consistent with the contrasting picture presented by DiMaggio above, the visitors in the sample were not as old or rich as one might have anticipated. They are more likely to be women and well-educated, although there are a number of visitors without high levels of formal eduction. The demographic results found in this study are quite consistent with other research conducted at the Metropolitan at different times of the year. The 609 subjects in the study consisted of 63% women, 37% men, with a median age of 37; forty-five percent were under the age of 35, with 16% being over the age of 54 (see Table 1). The Museum attracts large numbers of highly educated individuals and those with more modest levels of education. One-third reported that they had not obtained a college degree; 28% reported a bachelor's degree as their highest level of education; 40% reported holding a master's degree or higher. A variety of professions were reported by the respondents: most frequently listed were: Professional (22%) and Student (22%), followed by Arts Professional (13%), Teacher (11%), Executive/Managerial (10%), Retired (7%), Office (6%), Homemaker (4%), Sales (4%), and Trades (2%). An option to specify an occupation other

Table 2 Self-reported annual income levels Annual income

Percent

Less than $20,000 $20,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$64,999 $65,000-$79,999 $80,000-$99,999 $100,000-$299,999 $300,000 or more

25 21 14 12 4 6 14 4

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

225

Table 3 Anticipated duration of visit today Amount of time

Percent

Less than one hour 1-2 hours 2 - 3 hours 3 - 4 hours over 4 hours

4 35 38 15 8

than those listed was not used by any respondent. There was also substantial variation on the total family income levels listed. Almost one visitor in five reported an income over $100,000, while slightly over one fourth listed incomes under $20,000. It is important to keep in mind the relatively high proportion of students in this sample when interpreting these data. Income results are presented in Table 2. The Metropolitan enjoys a high level of repeat visitation; in this sample over three visitors out of four had been to the Museum previously and the median number of visits made in the previous year was three. Visitors most frequently arrive at the Museum in groups of two (46%) or by themselves (26%). Another 13% were in groups of three, 8% in groups of four, and the remaining 7% in groups of five or more. Median length of visit was a little over two hours. Table 3 presents a distribution of reported time spent in the Museum by respondents.

3.2. Visitor preferences and behaviors Visitors were asked to characterize their preferences and behaviors in visiting an art museum in a set of nine contrasting statements with six options per pair of statements. Results of the percentage of visitors selecting each option are presented in Fig. 1. Four of the statement pairs concern preferences for how to look at art. The first asks whether individuals like to look at many works of art briefly, or a few works in depth. There is wide variability on this item, with almost half of the respondents opting for the two middle values. This might suggest the possibility of looking briefly at most works, and stopping for an in-depth look at a very few. One third gave responses on the two options closest to looking at a few works in depth. This result will be somewhat puzzling for the art museum veteran, for it is rare to see a visitor spend as much as one minute in front of any particular work of art. In some pilot studies we have conducted on this topic, we find about 15 seconds to be the average amount of time spent even in front of masterpieces. The second statement pair concerns whether individuals like to look at art by themselves or discuss works with others. At the Metropolitan, about half of the visitors arrive at the Museum in pairs, roughly one quarter are alone, and the remaining quarter are in groups of three or more. It is interesting, therefore, to see

226

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

I look at many works of art briefly

10

13

24

21

18

14

I look at a few works in depth

I like to look by myself

30

16

14

14

13

13

I like to discuss works with others

I feel welcome in the museum

69

17

6

3

3

3

I feel uncomfortable in the museum

I am here today to learn

23

10

24

16

9

18

l am here today to have fun

I prefer linear, ordered organization

20

12

26

13

11

18

I prefer global, holistic organization

I am a concrete thinker

13

I0

24

22

16

15

I am an abstract thinker

I know how I like to look at art

25

I enjoy all types of museums

35

I know what I'll do at the Museum today

45

14

13

16

13

13

8

13

10

6

17

11

8

19

I would like to learn more about how to look at art

18

I strongly prefer to visit art museums

16

I have no plans yet for my visit today

Fig. I. Responses to contrasting statement pairs, shown as percents.

that o n l y 2 6 % o f the r e s p o n d e n t s p i c k e d the t w o o p t i o n s closest to " I like to discuss w o r k s with o t h e r s " , while a l m o s t one h a l f c h o s e the t w o o p t i o n s closest to " I like to l o o k b y m y s e l f " . O u r o b s e r v a t i o n s in the M u s e u m s u g g e s t that v i e w i n g is s o m e w h a t m o r e social than w h a t these results suggest, although it is frequently the case that a p a i r o f visitors will separate and then j o i n b a c k together, d i s c u s s i n g s o m e w o r k s and v i e w i n g others singly. T h e third o f the statement pairs a s k e d w h e t h e r visitors preferred a " l i n e a r , o r d e r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n " , o r a " g l o b a l , holistic o r g a n i z a t i o n " . T h e results indicate that there are clear a d v o c a t e s o f either e x t r e m e , but also a strong g r o u p c h o o s i n g the m i d d l e ground. It is p o s s i b l e that r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e c o n f u s e d by the terms " g l o b a l , h o l i s t i c " and chose the m i d d l e o p t i o n s b e c a u s e they w e r e uncertain w h a t was

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

227

meant. Whatever the proper interpretation of this question is, since most special exhibitions tend toward a chronological presentation, and since most museums are organized by genre and period, it is clear that those who prefer order are more likely, to realize their preferred viewing mode. The fourth pair of statements concerned whether visitors felt they knew how they like to look at art, or whether they wanted to learn more about how to look at art. Here, the bimodality of the results is quite clear. Only one quarter of the respondents picked the middle two options. Roughly two out of five visitors indicated that they knew how to look at art, and almost that many indicated that they would like to learn more about how to look at art. At the risk of sounding chauvinistic, we believe that this might represent close to an upper limit on the proportion of visitors to large museums who feel they already know how they like to look at art. Even with the relative sophistication of the Metropolitan's visitorship, well over one-third of the visitors would like help in ieaming how to look. Related to the statement pair about preference for linear or holistic organization, we asked visitors if they considered themselves to be concrete or abstract thinkers. The results were a bit surprising, as we feared many respondents would equate abstract thinking with intelligence, or would be influenced by an environment which would seem to value abstraction. The remarkably normal-looking distribution of results suggests otherwise. Apparently the bulk of the abstract thinkers were at The Guggenheim or the Whitney at the time of this survey. Next we wanted to look at whether the visitors were predominantly art museum visitors or if they enjoyed all types of museums. Almost half picked the two options closest to "all types", compared to 29% picking the two options closest to "strongly prefer art museums". This result is somewhat contradictory to what we have found in other research. When out-of-town visitors are asked what other cultural institutions they plan to visit during their time in New York City, other art museums are far more popular than the American Museum of Natural History and other non-art venues (Smith and Wolf, 1993). Visitors were asked whether they feel comfortable in the Museum. With over 1.4 million square feet of floor space and over two million works of art (not all are displayed at the same time), the Metropolitan can be somewhat overwhelming, especially to a first-time or infrequent visitor. This statement pair, however, produced the closest thing to unanimity found in the survey. Over two-thirds of the visitors picked the option closest to " I feel welcome", and only 9% picked any of the three options on the " I feel uncomfortable" side of the scale. The last two statement pairs concerned the visitors' plans for the day. First, we wanted to know if the visitor was at the Museum to learn or to have fun. Forty percent of the respondents picked the middle two options, perhaps rebutting the implicit notion in the question that learning and fun are somehow mutually exclusive. On the other hand, one third indicated that their purpose was to learn and a little over one quarter indicated that they were at the Museum for enjoyment. Finally, we asked visitors if they knew what they wanted to do at the Museum, or conversely, if they had no plans for their visit. Although about one quarter indicated no plans for their visit, 61% picked the two options closest to " I know what I'll do

228

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf~Poetics 24 (1996)219-238

at the Museum today". Given the high repeat visitation to the Museum coupled with the fact that there are almost always a half dozen special exhibitions in the Museum, specific plans are not surprising.

3.3. The relationship of visitor characteristics to visitor preferences and behaviors Since variability characterized the responses to many of the questions, we were interested in examining relationships which might exist between characteristics of the visitors and their reported preferences. We looked at gender, age, education, frequency of visitation (to the Metropolitan), and self-reported knowledge of art as predictors in a series of regression analyses with responses to the nine contrasting statement pairs as outcome measures. Gender was not related to any of the outcome measures and was dropped from the analyses. A correlation matrix of the independent and dependent variables was generated to examine simple relationships among the variables (Table 4). The intercorrelations among the independent variables were examined to look for potential problems of multicollinearity or suppression. This turned out not to be a concern. There are some relationships among the independent variables which are of interest. First are the correlations between knowledge of art and age, education, or frequency of visitation. The strongest of these is between knowledge of art and frequency of visitation (r = 0.284, p < 0.01). This might indicate that individuals who know more about art (or at least think they do) come to the Museum more often, or (somewhat more boldly) that frequenting the Museum leads to an increased knowledge of art. The correlation between education and knowledge of art is more modest (r = 0.213, p < 0.01), leading us to conclude that among museum visitors, well-educated does not necessarily mean sophisticated in the arts. The relationships among education, knowledge of art, and frequency of visitation replicate in other studies we have conducted as well as in studies done elsewhere (Smith et al., 1994; McDermott-Lewis et al., 1990). In considering these results, it is important to keep in mind the nature of the sample. What we have here are people who visit the Metropolitan. If we contrast this group to the general public, they are more highly educated, know more about art, and visit art museums more frequently. Bourdieu (1990) argues forcefully (and with empirical evidence) that even though access to art through museums is practically unlimited (since the cost is minimal or nothing), only those individuals who are relatively well-educated and knowledgeable about art avail themselves of this opportunity. Although for the sample of individuals who come to the Metropolitan the relationships among education, knowledge of art, and frequency of visitation are modest, if considered in the broader context of the general public they are quite consistent with Bourdieu's findings from French museums in the 1960's. The intercorrelations among the dependent variables were generally modest and in anticipated directions. For example, those who expressed a preference for a linear, ordered organization were more likely to report being concrete thinkers ( r = 0.244, p < 0.01). Those who know how they like to look at art were more likely to know what they planned to do during their visit (r = 0.194, p < 0.01).

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf~Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

229

o.o. I

I

6.

~ 0 0 0 II

E

~

~o

qQq~q II

2 d d d d d I

'~--

E

-

I

.0 0

q q q q q q q q II II II II

II

.o q

q

q

~

q

q

I

~ I

I c;

I

II

I

I

o c-

O

0

o-i.~

p..

~ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 III

i

o

I

r~

<

<

I I I I

l

~_9 _~-~_=

o

0

~ > > > > > > > > > <

~'~

~~~

230

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf~Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

N z

T 20 15 10

/

o V / , ( / / / ~LowKnowledge 1

2

3

4

5

6

Rating Fig. 2. Viewingpreferences.

Several of the other correlations among dependent variables were also statistically significant, but were smaller than the ones just reported. The relationships of the independent variables with the dependent variables were examined through a series of multiple regression analyses. The findings of these analyses are summarized in Table 5. The first regression analysis concerned the issue of whether visitors prefer to look at many works briefly or a few works in depth. What was found in this analysis was mirrored in a number of subsequent analyses: self-reported knowledge of art was the strongest predictor of responses to this question. The overall regression was significant, with two of the four predictors reaching significance. Self-reported knowledge of art was positively related to looking at a few works of art in depth as was frequency of visitation to the Museum. To further examine the relationship between knowledge of art and viewing preferences, the knowledge of art variable was trichotomized into high (ratings of 8-10), medium (ratings of 4-7) and low (ratings of 1-3) levels of knowledge. This scale was then plotted against responses to the contrasting statement pair concerning looking at many or few works of art. Results are presented in Fig. 2. The figure indicates that those visitors reporting low levels of art knowledge are much more likely to look at many works of art briefly than visitors reporting medium or high levels of art knowledge. It may be that these visitors feel a need to see all of their options, to consume all of the Museum as opposed to concentrating their efforts. With respect to frequency of visitation, those respondents who visit the Museum frequently (often local residents) have the luxury to focus their time,

J.K. Smith. L.F. Wolf~Poetics 24 (1996)219-238

23

.o O

-7. fl to r.~

<5 t-

in

m

o

to

II ta

I o

=

II

to

fl

--"

,..

..:

o

I

o

to

I

II

o. o. O

II to

II to

c5 I II

,:5 I II

n

to

~r

•<

<5u

,-.

H

tA

~

,,;

,A

~A

~A

~A

II ~

o II

II to

,A

c5 I II

,:5 I II

~z

~-d II

,:5 I II

II

~ U

,,6 II

~ II

~ II

II

o

,.-:~ ,~J

',7,

O

"v v

t,~ t=

~ ~ ~ ~

~ i ~ ~-:~~

232

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

35 30

T

25 20 15

/ / /

10

0

,

1

Knowledge / f / / / //~/ //~/ /Low Knowledge 2 3 4 5 6 Rating

Fig.3. Purposeof visit.

whereas visitors who do not get to visit often have a greater need to try to see all of what the Museum has to offer. The regression analyses for responses to whether visitors like to look by themselves or discuss works with others did not reach significance for the regression as a whole. None of the predictors were close to significance. This absence of a finding is particularly intriguing. There is ample variability in the dependent measure to find relationships, and yet none appear to exist. What the finding means, of course, is that the preference for solitary contemplation or a socially-constructed museum experience spans visitation patterns, age, education, and knowledge of art. The regression analysis for whether visitors felt welcome in the Museum did not reach significance either, but this statement pair contained little variability. The analysis for whether people were in the Museum to learn or to have fun was significant, with knowledge of art being the only predictor to reach significance. Using the same trichotomous breakdown described above, the results are presented graphically in Fig. 3. Although there are individuals at all levels of art knowledge who report being at the Museum either primarily for learning or for enjoyment, a gradual shift can be seen in the likelihood of response from enjoyment to learning as an knowledge increases. As mentioned earlier, in each level of learning there is a strong proportion choosing the middle response, apparently reluctant to divorce fun from learning. With regard to preference for linear or global organization, the overall regression is significant, but only marginally so, given the large sample size. Age shows a

J.K. Smith L.F. Wolf~Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

233

P E R C 30 E N 25 T 2o

15 10

. .

igh Knowledge oderate Knowledge

O.L/~ff J J J J ff/rffl /)//Low Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rating

Fig. 4. Styleof thinking.

modest relationship with this preference, as does frequency of visitation. Older and more frequent visitors show a slight preference for a more linear presentation. The relationship between visitor characteristics and whether respondents felt they were concrete or abstract thinkers was much stronger. Here, both older visitors and more frequent visitors viewed themselves as more concrete thinkers, while those who rated themselves as more knowledgeable in art also rated themselves as more abstract in their thinking. Looking at the relationship between knowledge of art and viewing oneself as concrete or abstract, it appears that the low and moderate levels of art knowledge show a similar pattern accounting for most of the responses toward the concrete end of the scale, while the high level of art knowledge respondents tend to be more abstract (Fig. 4). One of the strongest relationships found in the data was between knowledge of art and knowledge of how one likes to look at art. The overall regression was highly significant, with knowledge of art being the only significant predictor. This relationship is depicted in Fig. 5. There are several aspects of this relationship which are interesting. First, it is those who indicate a high level of knowledge who stand out as different. Individuals rating themselves as between four and seven on a ten-point scale are still more likely than not to indicate that they would like to learn more about art. It is not until the ratings are in the eight to ten range that people are more likely to indicate that they know how they like to look at art. Second, all three levels of self-reported art knowledge have members at both ends of the scale in terms of learning more about art. Some of the least knowledgeable nonetheless feel they

234

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf~Poetics 24 (1996)219-238

////=

E• C~ 30 E

25

..... /'

//

//

T 2o ~5 "" .'"

""

x~\\\\\\\\\\~x~x\x\\x

:::::::::::::~7

/// / / / /Moderate Knowledge 1

2

3

4

5

6

Rating Fig. 5. Preference for more knowledge.

know how they like to look at art and some of the most knowledgeable want to learn more. The regression relating visitor characteristics to preference for all types of museums versus art museums showed a strong level of overall significance. Three

P E R C 70 E 60 N T 50 40 30

igh Knowledge

20 a t e Knowledge

10

edge

0 1

4

5

6

Rating Fig. 6. Visitation plans.

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

235

of the four predictors were significant at the 0.05 level: education, knowledge of art, and age. What we see here is that visitors who are older, more highly educated, and more knowledgeable about art tend to prefer art museums over other types of museums. It is important to keep the sample in mind here. These are individuals who are being surveyed in an art museum; these results do not necessarily hold for the general population. The final regression concerned whether visitors had specific plans for the day. The regression was significant with knowledge of art and age being the only significant predictors. This regression indicates that older visitors and visitors more knowledgeable about art are more likely to have plans for their day in the Museum. A graph of the relationship between knowledge of art and having plans for the visit is presented in Fig. 6. The graph reveals that the highly knowledgeable group members typically have plans for the day, as do many of the members of the other two groups. There appears to be a second mode for the low knowledge group representing people who have no plans for their visit. The differences here seem to be a matter of degree.

4. Discussion Holding the rather unusual position of being social scientists in an art museum, we have developed a theorette concerning the receptivity given to much of our work by the art history and curatorial community. There are two kinds of findings which obtain from social science: results people already know and results they don't believe. We are happiest when we encounter findings somewhere between these two poles, which are not intuitively obvious but not so far from conventional wisdom as to engender undue skepticism. The findings presented here strike us as existing substantially in that happy middle ground. Some of what we found has given (even) us pause, because it appears not to be in agreement with other work that we have conducted. As a picture, visitors are quite varied with respect to who they are and how they look at art. They are younger and less wealthy than might be generally thought, but they do represent something of an elite in terms of levels of education. They feel welcome in the Museum and typically know what they are going to do that day. Most see their visit as educational and most would prefer to look at the art by themselves. There is great variability with respect to preferences for linear versus global organization, wanting to learn more about how to look at art versus already knowing how to look at art, and self perception as concrete or abstract thinkers. With regard to how visitors spend their time with works of art, the results are somewhat contradictory to what we have found in our observational work. Although many visitors indicate that they would prefer to focus on a few works of art, our observations indicate that most visitors want " t o see the Museum (or the exhibition)" as opposed to the individual work of art. The visitor gives 20 seconds to a Velasquez, then 15 to a Goya, then perhaps a half dozen works are passed over with

236

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996)219-238

just brief glances, and then maybe half a minute on an El Greco. Very few works get a full minute, and five minutes is rare. At the end of a museum visit, hundreds, perhaps thousands of works have been encountered cutting across centuries as well as cultures. Not only does this description of a typical visitor based on observation appear to contradict the survey findings, it also calls into question some of our more cherished concepts of what museums mean. How can the intense, atemporal and aspatial flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) occur under these circumstances? Where is the time found for the level of reflection necessary to foster cognitive change (Carr, 1992)? Can the curriculum be orderly if the attention given to it is scattershot (Vallance, 1993)? Is the effort necessary to encounter hundreds of statements by master artists going to be fundamentally restorative in nature (Kaplan et al., 1993)? Our response to each of the challenges posed above is the same: We are not sure how it occurs, but we believe - for at least some of the visitors some of the time that it does. This is not an article of faith on our part. When we ask visitors to rate their reactions to special exhibitions or when we analyze comment books, we find a remarkable consistency in how positively they evaluate their experiences. Some of this might be attributable to hyperbole or even to a belief that one ought to regard fine art with respect (Bourdieu, 1990). This rationale would not however, explain why the typical visitor to the Museum returns three times per year. We believe we have to look elsewhere to understand this seeming contradiction. The answer might lie in comparing the visit to an art museum to other cultural activities in which individuals partake. How does the visit compare to the theater, the ballet, or listening to an opera or a symphony? In terms of the time spent engaged in the art form, the number of artists encountered, the nature of how one allocates attention to various aspects of the work, and with regard to considering parts of a work as they relate to a whole, these performing art forms are comparable to visiting the entire museum (or sections within in it) as opposed to looking at individual works of art. The issue here is, what is the appropriate unit of analysis for studying a visit to an art museum. It may be more reasonable to think of the visitor's response to a collection of works rather than an individual work, or even a small set of works. In considering the museum visit in this fashion, individual works of art become comparable to acts, scenes, arias, or even phrases or jet, s. There is, of course, a marked difference in these art forms: in the performing arts, the artists control the presentation and flow of the material; in art museums, this control belongs to the audience. The collection is one that the visitor curates from among the options available. The museum has influence on this event by providing the public curriculum of orderly images that Vallance describes, but then it is up to the individual to construct the visit that will occur. We return to the beginning of this research; there are three influences on the nature of the museum visit: the works, the presentation, and the visitor. What is clear from this research is that individuals differ in how they will construct their aesthetic experience. To the extent that we could find a key to understanding how choices are made, it seems to be the knowledge of art that the individual brings to the experience. In particular, it appears that individuals highly

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf~Poetics 24 (1996)219-238

237

knowledgeable in art history differ from other visitors to the Museum. These visitors require little care or feeding on the part of the Museum; they typically know how they like to look at art, are at the Museum to learn, and have definite plans for their visit. Visitors less knowledgeable in art history, by far the largest segment of the Museum audience, seem more open to the influence of the Museum. Where does this work leave us in terms of what we know and don't know about museum visitors? At a very concrete level, we feel a need at this point to explore some of the apparent inconsistencies across studies, and to refine survey statements to allow for more certain interpretations of results. If visitors report wanting to spend more time on fewer works, what do they mean by that? When asked whether they like to discuss works with others or not, how should we interpret responses in the middle of the scale? Does this represent uncertainty, or a desire to look alone sometimes and to discuss with others sometimes? At a more abstract level, the results confirm the basic premise of Michael Spock's presentation to the art museum directors: there exists a wealth of useful information to be gathered about the person who goes to a museum.

References Bitgood, S., D. Patterson and A. Benefield, 1986. Understanding your visitors: Ten factors that influence visitor behavior (Technical Report #86-60). Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville State University, Psychology institute. Bourdieu, P. and A. Darbel, 1990. The love of art: European museums and their public. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Borun, M., 1977. Measuring the immeasurable: A pilot study of museum effectiveness. Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers. Brunner, J.A., 1994. The age of Rubens: A study of the exhibition's economic impact and the characteristics of its visitors. Toledo, OH: The Toledo Museum. Can., D., 1991. Minds in museums and libraries: The cognitive management of cultural institutions. Teachers College Record 93, 6-27. Can', D., 1992. Cultural institutions as structures for cognitive change. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 53, 21-35. Chase, R.A., 1975. Museums as learning environments. Museum News 54, 37-43. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and R.E. Robinson, 1990. The art of seeing: An interpretation of the aesthetic encounter. Malibu, CA: The J. Paul Getty Museum. DiMaggio, P., 1994. Presentation to the Association of Art Museum Directors, New Orleans (this volume). Gilman, B.I., 1916. Museum fatigue. Science Monthly 12, 62-74. Griggs, S.A., 1984. Evaluating exhibitions. In: J. Thompson (ed.), Manual of curatorship: A guide to museum practice, 412-422. London: Butterworth. Harris, L., 1992. Americans and the arts Vl: A nationwide survey of public opinion. Washington, DC: American Council for the Arts. Hood, M.G., 1983. Staying away. Why people choose not to visit museums. Museum News 61, 50-57. Kaplan, S., L.V. Bardwell and D.B. Slakter, 1993. The restorative experience as a museum benefit. Journal of Museum Education 18, 15- 17. McDermott-Lewis, M., P. Williams, M. Chambers and R. Loomis (eds.), 1990. Through their eyes: The Denver Art Museum interpretive project. Denver, CO: The Denver Art Museum. Melton, A., 1933. Some behavior characteristics of museum visitors. Psychological Bulletin 30, 720-721. Melton, A., 1935. Problems of installation in museums of art. American Association of Museums Monograph, New Series No. 14. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

238

J.K. Smith, L.F. Wolf/Poetics 24 (1996) 219-238

Oestreicher, L., 1986. 'Barking dogs' and the visitor. Museum evaluation and the search for effective exhibits. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76(2), 133-138. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1993. The arts as an industry: Their economic importance to the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Region. New York: Alliance for the Arts. Robinson, E.S., 1928. The behavior of the museum visitor. American Association of Museums Monograph, New Series No. 5. Washington DC: American Association of Museums. Robinson, E.S., 1930. Psychological problems of the science museum. Museum News 8, 9-1 I. Robinson, E.S., 1931. Exit the typical visitor. Journal of Adult Education 3, 418-423. Robinson, J., 1994. Arts participation in America: 1982-1992. Report #27. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. Screven, C.G., 1990. Uses of evaluation before, during, and after exhibit designs. ILVS Review: A Journal of Visitor Behavior 1, 33-66. Smith, J.K. and L.F. Wolf, 1993. The economic impact of major exhibitions at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Museum of Modem Art, and The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. New York: The Arts Research Center of the Alliance for the Arts. Smith, J.K., L.F. Wolf and S. Staradoubtsev, 1994. Visitor characteristics in two art museums: The Poushkin and the Metropolitan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Spook, M., 1994. Presentation to the Association of Art Museum Directors, New Orleans. Vallance. E., 1993. The public curriculum of orderly images. Vice Presidential Address, Division B/Curriculum Studies, American Educational Research Association annual meeting. Atlanta, Georgia.