Exhibition Concept Models: July 2002
Exhibition Concept Models: July 2002
July 2002
July 2002
Preface............................................................................................................................................ iii
Background ......................................................................................................................................1
The Office of Policy Analysis (OP&A) intends that this white paper, Exhibition Concept Models,
is used as a timely and useful tool to help conceive of and develop exhibitions. An important
unstated aim is to develop exhibitions that improve communication with visitors. The paper was
written by Andrew Pekarik. His professionalism and dedication to improving exhibitions is
playing a major role in our work. The draft was reviewed by Zahava Doering, Whitney Watriss,
and Kathleen Ernst. They provided insights, criticism, and suggestions at various stages.
Although OP&A staff is extremely busy, staff are gracefully accepting my firmness in
completing this series of white papers on schedule. I am grateful.
The purpose of this paper is to describe these concept models and to consider the implications of
emphasizing these four approaches in exhibition-making. The selections of models presented
below have implications not just for individual exhibitions, but also for the mix of exhibitions at
museums. The underlying assumption is that the identification, discussion and adoption of
models that are different from the usual practice at a museum would be valuable in shaping a
diverse mix of exhibitions with appeal to a wider range of audiences.
In contemporary exhibition-making practice there are four different approaches with respect to
the way exhibitions function with respect to their visitors:
Most exhibitions have artifacts, include ideas on texts and labels, presume the visitor will do
something, and create an environment. But these four perspectives do not receive equal
emphasis in particular exhibitions, and usually the exhibition-maker views only one or two of
these dimensions as most critical to success. Even though the four approaches are not inherently
contradictory, they pull the exhibition-maker in different directions. Emphasizing objects, for
example, necessarily leads one to downplay whatever would interfere or unduly compete with
that focus, such as abundant texts or prominent videos.
In general, museums tend to favor one concept model over the others. In other words, one of the
models prevails. Art museums tend to produce exhibitions that favor the first model, since the art
exhibition is generally seen as a public presentation of important art objects. History museums
usually favor the idea of the exhibition as a communicator of ideas about the past. The exhibition
as visitor activity is a standard of science centers, where interactivity is emphasized. The
exhibition as environment is familiar in contemporary zoos and natural history museums where
immersive environments imitate or recall natural habitats.
Depending on the tradition within which they are working, exhibition-makers have different
expectations for how the artifact display will affect visitors. There is a tendency in art museums,
for example, to believe that “art speaks for itself,” i.e., that the individual object, by virtue of its
power as art, will activate in the attentive visitor a unique, complex, intellectual and emotional
response. Each object accordingly is given the space considered appropriate and necessary to its
“speaking” role. In a natural history museum, by contrast, the effect of an individual object on a
visitor arises in large part from its role as a compelling example of a much larger whole, some
important aspect of the world. Although a single object can do the job, usually coordinated
groups of objects are arranged to work collectively.
The Golden Age of Chinese Archaeology, a recent exhibition at the National Gallery of Art,
adhered closely to the artifact-display model. Outstanding examples of recently excavated
materials, selected for their uniqueness, beauty, and importance, were presented in a way that
allowed them to command attention. Information and context were restrained, so that the visitor
might leave the exhibition inspired by the creativity, imagination and sophistication of ancient
Chinese artists.
Not all artifact displays are aesthetic. When the objects are historical photographs, for example,
visitors can feel that the pictures transport them across time and space to events in the past.
Without Sanctuary, an exhibition of postcards of lynchings, was a classic artifact-display of
materials with no aesthetic value. Yet, because of the contents and historicity of these images,
they left an indelible emotional impression.
Exhibitions that stress ideas tend to have educational goals and are common in history and
natural history museums, which often seek to instruct and inspire visitors regarding history and
science. The Smithsonian exhibition A More Perfect Union, which tells the story of the Japanese
American internment during World War II, is a good example of an exhibition that functions
primarily as a communicator of ideas.
A recent idea-exhibition is The Endurance, the current traveling exhibition (organized by the
American Museum of Natural History) that tells the story of Sir Ernest Shackleton’s 1914
journey to the Antarctic. Although the exhibition contains a handful of original objects, the
emphasis is on the linear narrative as conveyed through texts and maps.1
Idea-exhibitions are relatively rare in art museums, but one example was Puja: Expressions of
Hindu Devotion, an exhibition opened by the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery in 1996, which received
an award in the American Association of Museums’ (AAM) Exhibition Competition. The
exhibition’s statues, ritual objects and re-creations of shrines used in Hindu worship were heavily
contextualized by videos displayed next to objects, altar arrangements, photographs, elaborate
text panels, a reading area, and albums of household shrines in the community. The point of the
exhibition was to inform visitors, and nearly half of visitors said that their most satisfying
experience in the exhibition was learning something.
1
At some of the venues of this traveling exhibition the exhibition included a separate room with a reproduction of
the Endurance’s lifeboat surrounded by images of the sea and an opportunity to use an interactive navigational
instrument.
Typically the most activity-oriented exhibitions are found in children’s museums and science
centers. Activity-exhibitions are usually interactive, because an interactive exhibition is
specifically designed to respond to what the visitor does. An example of an activity-exhibition at
the Smithsonian is the Hands-on History Room in the National Museum of American History,
where visitors can touch and use reproductions of historical objects.
A new exhibition that follows the activity-model is Risk!, developed by the Fort Worth Museum
of Science and History. Visitors engage in a series of interactive, realistic experiences that
awaken their perception or misperception of risk. They find, for example, what it feels like to
cross a 7-inch-wide steel beam 17 stories above the ground amid wind, blaring construction
noises, and a noisy flock of birds flying by, and they personally discover whether or not it hurts
to lie on a bed of nails.
The Indianapolis Children’s Museum’s exhibition Drumbeats! received an award from the AAM
Exhibition Competition. The target audience was nine to twelve-year-old children, and the
exhibition began with a three-sided percussion wall of materials that visitors were invited to use
to make sounds. The core of the exhibition was the opportunities to listen to and play percussion
instruments from all over the world.
One of the most talked-about environment-exhibitions in recent years is the Bronx Zoo’s Congo
Gorilla Forest, in which visitors move through a convincing six-and-a-half acre African rain
forest and ultimately find themselves face to face with a group of lowland gorillas.
Art museums have long embraced the value of environment-exhibitions in their period rooms.
The Philadelphia Museum of Art, in particular, has devoted a considerable amount of display
area to authentic, large-scale structures that visitors can walk in and around, including a Chinese
temple and a Japanese teahouse.
The Field Museum took a different approach in its music exhibition, Sounds from the Vaults.
Musical instruments from many different cultures were displayed in a standard artifact-display
manner, but in front of each case there was a touchpad or buttons that visitors could use to hear
the sounds that the instrument makes and to play their own tunes on it. Artifact and experience
were not separated, but united in a single presentation.
More recently, Explore the Universe, a new exhibition at the National Air and Space Museum is
an example of a hybrid exhibition. In approximately equal measure it combines a focus on
artifacts (including both original objects and reproductions), ideas (especially information about
the universe and the history of astronomy), and visitor activity (in its many interactives).
Hybrid exhibitions run the risk of seriously displeasing those with strong preferences. In his
review of The Quest for Immortality: Treasures of Ancient Egypt, for example, the Washington
Post art critic, Blake Gopnik, expresses dismay that the exhibition “is entirely focused on
explaining what the old Egyptians thought would happen after death, so that the objects in it
become nothing more than handy illustrations for its rudimentary ethnography.”2 He is
categorically rejecting idea-exhibitions in an art museum, and is not at all mollified by the
exhibition’s hybrid status as both artifact-display and idea-exhibition (with elements of an
environment-exhibition added at the end).
2
Blake Gopnik, “A Dark and Shining Past,” Washington Post, June 30, 2002.
When exhibition-makers consider which approach to follow in a particular case, they are likely
to be influenced by the suitability of the content to a particular model. Some exhibition themes
call for the use of one model over another. In contemporary art museums, for example, some
installation art provides an immersive environment and some media art invites the participation
of visitors. Exhibitions about specific historical events often work best as idea-exhibitions. A
theme such as optical illusions, for example, would probably suggest an emphasis on visitor
activity.
The target audience(s) for the exhibition can also be an important consideration. Different people
have different perspectives on what they want in an exhibition. When the preferences of the
visitor and the approach of the exhibition are not well matched, the visitor may respond
unenthusiastically. At the same time, an exhibition that tries to be all things equally to all visitors
risks losing character and can give the impression of being a bland, committee product that
pleases everyone slightly and no one strongly.
If each visitor can find an exhibition that suits his or her preference, the museum will establish a
much stronger relationship with that visitor. Since visitor preferences vary, exhibition
approaches should vary as well. If the museum wishes to encourage repeat visits and to expand
its audiences, it seems to be in the museum’s interest to cater to the widest possible range of
preferences by providing exhibitions based on all the conceptual models, rather than one or two
dominant orientations.
Which approach works best depends on the individual visitor. Research on visitor experiences
conducted recently at the Smithsonian demonstrated that people have preferences for different
kinds of experiences in museums. Looking at visitor experiences across eight Smithsonian
museums, for example, it was found that visitors under age 25 were more likely than other
visitors to find introspective experiences most satisfying and less likely to find cognitive
experiences most satisfying.3
Hybrid models are not likely to provide the best solution to achieving variety in a museum,
because some experiences tend to conflict with one another. For example, the quiet
contemplation of objects, which is privileged in a traditional artifact-display, becomes more
difficult in a space that encourages interactive experiences and social behaviors. In addition,
hybrid exhibitions, because they contain multiple approaches, run the risk of seeming superficial
and unfocused. Within a particular hybrid model it may be impossible to maximize the
effectiveness of all the different approaches that the model simultaneously embodies.
Learning about the relative effectiveness of these models, as this paper suggests, is in a
preliminary stage.
3
Pekarik, A.J., Doering, Z. D., & Karns, D. A. (1999). Exploring satisfying experiences in museums. Curator: The
Museum Journal, 42(2), 152-173.
An art museum whose exhibitions are primarily artifact-displays, for example, could expand the
diversity and richness of their exhibitions by actively adopting another concept model as the
starting point for some exhibitions. If an art museum project starts with the aim of producing an
art exhibition which functions principally as an activity-exhibition, for example, it will require a
different approach to selection, display, and process. That fresh viewpoint can enrich the
diversity of exhibitions in the museum, and awaken fresh creative energies among the staff.
The deliberate choice of an alternative concept model in a history museum could also benefit the
visitor. Activity-exhibitions, and environment-exhibitions would be welcomed by many visitors
to history museums. Natural history museums would also serve their audiences better by
replacing some idea-exhibitions with other types.
Currently the National Air and Space Museum uses a broad mix of exhibition types. Three of its
most popular exhibitions are each dominated by one of the four models. Space Race is an
artifact-display, How Things Fly is an activity-exhibition and Air-Sea Operations is an
environment-exhibition. In addition, as mentioned earlier, Explore the Universe is an artifact-
idea-activity hybrid.
If a museum decides that, in the interest of better serving its diverse audience, it should produce
more exhibitions using different models, it needs to do two things. First, the museum should
decide what mix it wants. Second, the museum should determine what mix it presently has, so
that it can see in what directions it needs to change. The concept models described in this paper
can be used to guide these decisions. However, it should be noted that the models are only one of
many considerations that should be taken into account prior to determining an exhibition
program.
In order to apply the four concept models as an analytical tool, separately consider each gallery
in the museum and identify the dominant focus within that room or space, using a matrix of
identifying characteristics, as in Figure l. The features used to distinguish types represent typical
current practices.4 If several orientations seem equally strong within a given space, then assign
the gallery to both.
4
“Primary experience type” refers to the taxonomy presented in Pekarik et al., (1999).
Using distinctions such as these, it is possible to assign all the exhibition galleries in the
museum into the four types and calculate an approximate profile for the museum. This profile
can then be used as one of the guides for establishing a future exhibition program that is likely to
appeal to a broader range of visitors.