Creation and Reception of Exhibitions: Comparison of Provider Intentions and Visitor Response

Abstract

This study examined the nature of exhibition creation and reception by comparing provider's design intentions for seven exhibitions with the reality of visitor response. The primary objective was exploration of possible factors contributing to documented failure of museum exhibitions. Seven case study exhibitions in Wellington, New Zealand formed the basis of fieldwork -- two at the Museum of New Zealand, and five at Capital Discovery Place. Four methods were used to determine design intentions: analysis of official design briefs, content analysis of annotated floorplans from design team members, content analysis of interviews with design teams, and analysis of videotaped tours led through models and drawings of exhibitions. Visitor reception was also assessed by using a variety of techniques: (1) analysis of observed use of exhibitions -- tracking, behavioural mapping, and detailed observation of 3,796 visitors; (2) content analysis of formal interviews with 359 visitors; and (3) content analysis of information from 28 focus groups with a total of 169 visitors. Findings support the hypothesis that the exhibition creation process is implicated in exhibition failures; culturally-based conflicts between different types of provider (e.g. curator and designer) were found in all cases, and were negatively reflected in design solutions. Images of visitors held by providers revealed that exhibitions are geared for professional peers, or "already converted" visitors. Intentions found in design briefs were in frequent opposition to those expressed via interviews and annotated floorplans, raising questions about the value and legitimacy of briefs. The nature of intentions reflected a high degree of determinism, with respect to educational, aesthetic, experiential and behavioural expectations. The gap between design intentions and visitor response was found to be culturally determined by inherent differences between visitors and providers. This gap was also found to vary between different types of design intentions with educational ones least successful, and experiential ones relatively successful. Findings also support the hypothesis that evaluation techniques may be implicated in exhibition failure; traditional exhibition evaluation (formal interviews structured around intended educational transmission) was found to maximise the gap between intentions and response compared to both focus groups and observational methods. Traditional evaluation represents the final stage in a closed-loop design process controlled by providers. A central conclusion is that exhibitions may more usefully be treated as architectural settings than educational media (as traditionally viewed). This is based on evidence derived from several sources: (1) the gestalt nature of visitor museum experience, in which the entire physical and subjective environment is involved; (2) success of the focus group (touring interview) evaluation method which elicits holistic responses to environments; and (3) this study's findings that successful exhibitions are those which work as integrated environments.