Understanding Visitors’ Learning Experience through Exhibition Design at the Universiti Malaya Art Gallery Through Multifaceted Approach

Understanding Visitors’ Learning Experience through Exhibition Design at the Universiti Malaya Art Gallery through Multifaceted Approach

Hazlin Anita Binti Zainal Abidin, Noorshahira Mohd Fadzil

Universiti Teknologi MARA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1107089

Received: 24 June 2024; Reeceived: 16 July 2024; Accepted: 20 July 2024; Published: 21 August 2024

ABSTRACT

Background: Exhibition design is tied closely with the function and the appearance of every facet of the museum system. It embraces all tangible evidence of the museum activities and at the same time supports the meaning of the exhibition and becomes an essential feature for visitors’ learning experience. Purpose: Driven by the question of how we can create an exhibition that suits visitors’ learning experience, the making of exhibition prototypes was conducted. Methodology/Approach: Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected to identify visitors’ learning experiences through the exhibition design created and to discover creative solutions to complex exhibition problems through an interdisciplinary approach. Finding/Conclusions: It was found that each museum visitors have a certain standard and need in viewing the exhibitions. The process behind design thinking provides several advantages and benefits in this research. It assists in the creation of the prototype while mise-en-scene works as an instrument in designing the exhibit. The outcome of this research will assist art galleries and museums to understand better the learning experience from the visitor’s perspective and on top of all enable gallery management to provide better exhibition design with better learning outcomes for visitors. Implications: The ‘new practice’ will be a huge contribution to future development and highlight the importance of exhibition design in improving visitors’ learning experience process with the intent that it can lead to a better understanding not only from the visitors’ perspective but also from the gallery.

Keywords: visitors’ learning experience, exhibition design, design thinking, interdisciplinary approach

INTRODUCTION

Individuals visit museums with a boundless array of motivations. The reasons mentioned have a crucial role in determining our expectations for visiting a museum and are essential for our comprehension of the purpose of museum visits (Cotter et al., 2021). Prior studies have indicated that individuals frequently cite “learning” as their primary motivation for visiting museums (Combs, 1999; Beittel, 1998; Falk et al., 1998; Prentice, 1998; Jansen-Verbeke & van Rekom, 1996). People visit museums out of curiosity to learn about the museum’s offerings (Brida et al., 2017). Furthermore, Brida also highlighted that one of the motivations for people to visit the museum is to satisfy their partner’s desires and reluctantly accompany them. According to Phelan et al. (2018), in addition to having learning goals, some visitors are motivated by the need to be entertained and to have an experience that is worthy of being posted on Instagram. Nguyen (2021) determines, via a comprehensive analysis of literature and research, that four key variables influence the decision of young people to visit museums.

These aspects are (1) extrinsic motivation; (2) intrinsic motivation; (3) learning; and (4) aesthetics and architecture.

The exhibition design indirectly facilitated and maintained the visitor’s learning experience (Anderson & Lucas, 1997). Let us contemplate Kaplan’s (1999) assertion for a moment: It is imperative to acknowledge that a successful exhibition encompasses more than just an idea, the artifacts, and the installation… An exhibition that effectively communicates should both educate and stimulate the intellect and the senses. When communication is at its best, it generates a profound impact on observers and audiences. According to Lord and Lord (2001), the exhibition is the main element within the museum that allows visitors to acquire an experience. Perry (2012) emphasized that visitors are anticipated to have pleasurable and inherently stimulating encounters, which must encompass educational elements. Exhibitions have a crucial role in shaping a museum’s public perception and serve as the primary method for museums to engage with their audience (Forrest, 2014). Once again, she asserts that exhibitions are the most prominent facet of museum operations. For a large portion of the audience, displays are synonymous with the museum. As museums are facing growing pressure to prove their significance to the public, the importance of exhibitions has increased (Forrest, 2014). The curators and display designers pondered over the message, prompting queries about its relevance. What information do they have about the factors that motivate tourists to attend the museum? What kinds of experiences are visitors experiencing? What knowledge or information do individuals gain from the exhibits?

There is an important need to initiate interesting exhibitions and programs that are relevant, innovative and fun so that visitors’ experience is enhanced (Nur Afni Halil et al., 2018).  Roppola (2012) describes exhibition environments are enticingly complex spaces: as facilitators of experience; free-choice learning contexts; theatres of drama; encyclopaedic warehouses of cultural and natural heritage; as two-, three- and four-dimensional storytellers, and sites for engaging day out. Roppola (2012) again stated that a key task for exhibition designers is to sensitively orchestrate interpretive content and interpretive media, in relationship with the overall vessel of the institution’s building, so that visitors are supported in meaningful and accessible ways.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The fundamental goal of an exhibition designer is to inspire museum visitors through design (Quenneville, 2024). In creating an exhibit that suits the visitor’s wants and needs, the curator, designer, and design team will face challenges. Beghetto and Kaufman (2011) imply that a well-designed exhibit could be put together much the way the creative lesson is designed by a skilled teacher, by striking the right balance between structure and improvisation. Designing an exhibition requires a high degree of development and design to serve the people as visitors regardless of background. At the same time, design decisions should be calculated, planned, and completed to reach the maximum result. From a commercial perspective, exhibition design requires designers to use a variety of artistic design languages to intricately design and organize three-dimensional spaces or two-dimensional planes within a given timeframe and physical environment (Qian, 2018). This allows the spaces or planes to transcend their fixed spatial structure and establish a logical connection with the exhibits. According to Qian (2018), such design not only aids in promoting the exhibits but also enhances viewers’ sense of involvement, effectively achieving the goal of communication. A key task for exhibition designers is to sensitively orchestrate interpretive content and interpretive media, in relationship with the overall vessel of the institution’s building, so that visitors are supported in meaningful and accessible ways. Exhibition design not only supports the meaning of the exhibition but also has an inherent meaning or creates meaning in and of itself.

Among the elements of the interdisciplinary approach are design thinking and mise-en-scene. The term design thinking is increasingly applied in various principles of the industry today. In order to endure and maintain a competitive edge in a swiftly evolving landscape, museums and galleries must engage in innovation. According to Matthews and Wrigley (2018), design thinking has been identified as making valuable contributions, especially to business and management as well. Design thinking is a holistic innovation method that focuses on the consumer and tries to discover and build unique company concepts or complete business models (Mueller-Roterberg, 2018). Design thinking aims to apply the approaches and methodologies used by designers to business processes. The approach is universally applicable to all types of business concepts, regardless of whether they are product-based or service-based. Glen et al. (2014) argued that design methods align with adaptive reasoning in real-world settings. Design thinking is the collaborative effort of cross-functional teams to comprehensively grasp user requirements and develop solutions that effectively cater to those requirements. Moreover, the design-thinking approach enables the identification of ground-breaking solutions and establishes itself as a very effective framework for addressing exhibition design challenges in museums and galleries.

While design thinking fosters and motivates the generation of innovative and original concepts, mise-en-scene encompasses more than just the composition of a shot; it is a continuous spatial arrangement that involves deliberate positioning and movement (Aitken & Deborah, 2006). Bordwell and Thompson (2013) highlighted that mise-en-scene encompasses inherent power and influence, which filmmakers employ to achieve a specific level of realism. Gibbs’ (2002) explanation of mise-en-scene focused on ‘the contents of the frame’. The question at hand is, what exactly do these contents refer to? The elements encompassed in theatrical production are lighting, costume, setting, and staging, as stated by Gibbs (2002). On the other hand, according to Bordwell and Thompson, mise-en-scene consists of setting, costume and make-up, lighting, and acting. Dix (2010) categorized mise-en-scene into five components: locations, props, costuming, lighting, and acting. The director can use control over these aspects to strategically orchestrate events. The film director uses these components to orchestrate the occurrence specifically for the camera, providing the audience with vivid and distinct memories of the action.

We cannot deny the powerful impact these multifaceted elements can bring. The strong aspects of both design thinking and mise-en-scene might work in the business and filmmaking arena, but is there any possibility of creating the same outcome in the art gallery and museum exhibition? Are the strong elements related to mise-en-scene and design thinking that might develop an alternative great foundation in designing an exhibition that suits our multifaceted visitors?

METHODOLOGY

The objective of this study is to examine the design of exhibitions at art museums, with a specific focus on the learning experiences of visitors. We will use an interdisciplinary strategy, incorporating various approaches, to develop the prototype for the comprehensive research. Below is a concise summary of the interdisciplinary approach.

Figure 1 Interdisciplinary approach summary

Adaptation from Turpeinen (2006).

While Turpeinen (2006) used ‘Interdisciplinary Methods’ phrases in her study, the researcher changed the phrase to ‘Interdisciplinary Approach’ by maintaining the word interdisciplinary. The Interdisciplinary Approach used throughout this research is a continuous method that can be applied from the beginning till the end. The researcher decided to apply this method due to its multidisciplinary factor as well as flexibility and adaptability in any situation. When Turpeinen (2006) started to apply this method in her research, she was trying to analyse visual elements and their relationship with exhibition design in cultural history museums and how exhibitions produce meanings and researcher believes that the same methods can be applied in this study as well.

The Universiti Malaya Art Gallery (UMAG) in Kuala Lumpur conducted the research and prototype. UMAG aims to become a symbol of the institution by focusing on the collection’s analysis, protection, maintenance, display, education, interpretation, and growth. The gallery showcases artwork from both local and international artists, complemented by educational activities that cater to all age groups. The primary objective of the University of Malaya Art Gallery (UMAG) is to integrate visual arts into the University of Malaya community’s experience, enhance understanding of art and culture, establish itself as a top-tier attraction for both local and international visitors, and serve as a public entrance to the university’s intellectual wealth.

There will be three phases of data collection where all questions developed were based on the literature by Dernie (2006), Lorenc et al. (2010), Velarde (2001), and Lord and Lord (2001) where some tests and modifications were made after receiving the feedback from the interviews that related to the design thinking process. All respondents involved in this study will be available for all prototypes where they will provide their reactions and comments in the interview and questionnaire session. The summary of each is as follows:

Table 1. Phases and stages in data collection

The exhibition also known as prototypes will be created throughout this study as follows.

Table 1.1 Prototype detailing

Data Analysis

During the observation phase, an important question was asked to help strengthen this research objective; (Why do people visit the museum?). The question was asked randomly among 348 purposive respondents male and female visitors of different ranges of age. from various museums and galleries provided various phrases/words as their responses to the question given. The summary of their responses is as follows:

Table 2. The random phrases / words on Why do people visit the museum?

Based on the summary of phrases from the visitors, they understood why they visited the museum. 71 visitors (20.40%) mentioned that they visited the museum to learn something new, while 67 visitors stated that they were curious about a certain subject and sought answers. Additionally, 56 visitors mentioned that they visited the museum is to experience new things, and another group mentioned that they were seeking inspiration.

It can be summarized that each prototype provides a different impact on the production of the next prototype. Each prototype was successfully developed with the assistance of visitors’ suggestions and comments towards the exhibition. ‘People’ who come to the museum and ‘people’ who work within the museum are the key people in this prototype and trying to understand visitor problems, issues and concerns will help in producing better prototypes and exhibitions that suit their needs and wants.

All four (4) main subjects (i. Exhibition Design, ii. Design Thinking, iii. Visitor Learning Experience, iv. Mise-En-Scene), this research contributed to the body of studies and created the flow of the research design. The study answered the following research questions:

RQ1 – How do the new exhibition designs create a meaningful learning experience for its visitors?

Answer – ‘People’ are the main reason why the museum still exists to this day and ‘people’ also started the journey of museology in the world. When the first museum was created the main objectives for its opening were related to learning and knowledge and even the definition of the museum also mentioned learning, knowledge, experience, and enjoyment. Prototypes created in this study also favoured the visitors who were given priority to put forward ideas and views on the new exhibition design.

RQ2 – How can design thinking bring about creative solutions to solve complex exhibition problems?

Answer – Design thinking refers to inventive, creative, and innovative strategies where the approach can be used to consider issues and resolve problems related to human needs and wants. Design thinking also has been known as a human-centred approach where empathy is the main key to understanding other human problems. It has been applied in complex business issues as well as in other industries or areas. In the museum industry design thinking is the best creative solution for solving complex exhibition problems due to its success rate in the past.

‘People’ is the only reason why the museum was created a long time ago and ‘people’ also is the only reason why this research was created. ‘People’ need to understand other ‘people’ and ‘people’ need to solve other ‘people’ problems. This is the reality in any industry in the world where ‘people’ take advantage of other ‘people’ and benefit from other ‘people’s problems. No matter how it ends we must look back at the beginning to understand the whole situation. The category of ‘people’ relates to the visitors of the museums and galleries where they are the people who seek learning, knowledge, and experience. They will make their meaning and at the same time construct their narratives and storylines based on their interest and experiences gained (Kelly, 2007). Another category of ‘people’ relates to the curator and design team within the museums and galleries. These are the ‘people’ who seek to solve visitor and management problems and they will also be the people who will investigate the operational side of the museums and galleries. Curators cannot be simply defined by their ability to create an exhibition and again as stated by Obrist (2011) sometimes a curator is the servant, sometimes he gives artists ideas of how to present their work, and the curator is also an inventor in creating the right exhibit.

Mise-En-Scene is just a tool in this research but it’s a useful tool that assists in creating better and improved exhibition design. Some museums might look at the installation as a waste, but it may create an impact on the visitors. The curator and design team might have to look back at their past creation for them to be able to see through what visitors want and reject. Design development is another process that they might want to look at where they might find something interesting to work at and work with. The whole process of creating an exhibition can be summarized as a learning process where ‘people’ learn about other ‘people’ and try to understand ‘people’ needs and wants as well as solve problems. It might look simple and easy, but ‘people’ are funny creatures and never stop complaining if given a chance. And since the designer and curator are also human this might help to understand one another.

Design thinking might help in certain cases and benefit all parties and in this case, the problem facing the museum and galleries. Empathy, as the main element in design thinking, is the key to understanding visitors’ and management’s wants and needs while prototypes might not be the answer to every problem but assist in getting the possible solution. The prototype created is meant to be tested by the client and in this case, the visitor and conclusion can only be derived from it. Mise-en-scene as a tool might change in the future but the essence is that assisting directors and film/theatre crew can be part of the curator and designer team tool in supporting them in creating their next exhibition. Mise-en-scene might be defined as ‘to put on stage’ but in the case of the exhibition it might as well be defined as ‘to put on exhibit’.

From the exhibition design, design thinking, visitor learning experience, and mise-en-scene to the curator, we are looking at multifaceted practices and the multifaceted public. Every single one of these elements empowers one another and at the same time creates a fundamental that strengthens the whole institution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to express gratitude to the management of the Universiti Malaya Art Gallery, Dr. Nor Edzan Che Nasir (Universiti Malaya Chief Librarian), Dr. Weylyn Jeffrey Jehom (Pua Kumbu Researcher), Rube Jamal (Artist), and Maamor Jantan (Artist) for being part of this project.

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

REFERENCE

1. Aitken, S.C. & Deborah, P.D. (2006). Imagining geographies of film. Erdkunde, 60(4), 326-336. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25647920
2. Anderson, D. & Lucas, K B. (1997). The effectiveness of orienting students to the physical features of a science museum prior to visitation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 485– 495. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461476
3. Beghetto, R.A. & Kaufman, J.C. (2011). Teaching for creativity with disciplined improvisation. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp.94-109). Cambridge University Press.
4. Beittel, K.R. (1998). For the Marilyn Zurmuehlen Symposium. Visual Arts Research, 24(2), 2-3. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715945
5. Bordwell, D. & Thompson, K. (2013). Film art: An introduction (11^th). McGraw Hill Education.
6. Brida, J. G., Nogare, C. D., & Scuderi, R. (2017). Learning at the museum: Factorsinfluencing visit length. Tourism Economics, 23(2), 281-294.
7.  Combs, A. (1999). Why do they come? Listening to visitors at a decorative arts museum. Curator The Museum Journal, 43(3), 186-197.
8. Cotter, K. N., Fekete, A., & Silvia, P. J. (2022). Why do people visit art museums? Examining visitor motivations and visit outcomes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 40(2), 275-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374211011740
9. Dernie, D. (2006). Exhibition design. Laurence King Publishing Ltd.
10. Dix, A. (2010). Beginning film studies. Viva Books.
11. Falk, J.H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors’ agendas on museum learning. Curator The Museum Journal, 41(2), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1998.tb00822.x
12. Forrest, R. (2014, July 15-19). Perceived atmosphere: A novel way for characterising exhibition environments [Conference presentation]. 27^th Annual Visitor Studies Association Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Retrieved from https://visa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/historical/conferences/vsa%202014%20abstracts%20-%20full.pdf
13. Glen, R., Sucio, C., & Baughn, C. (2014). The need for design thinking in business Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(4), 653-667.
14. Jansen-Verbeke, M. & van Rekom, J. (1996). Scanning museum visitors: Urban tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 364-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00076-3
15. Kaplan, F. (1999). Exhibitions as communicative media. In E. Hooper- Greenhill (Ed.), Museum, media, message (pp. 37-58). Routledge.
16. Kelly, L. (2007). The interrelationships between adult museum visitors’ learning identities and their museum experiences [Doctoral dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney]. Retrieved from https://media.australian.museum/media/dd/Uploads/Documents/6663/FINAL+THESIS+FOR+GRADUATION_KELLY.c05e2f5.pdf
17. Lord, B. & Lord, G.D. (2001). The manual of museum exhibitions. California: AltaMira Press.
18. Lorenc, J., Skolnick, L., & Berger, C. (2010). What is exhibition design?
19. Matthews, J. & Wrigley, C. (2017). Design and design thinking in business and management higher education. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1).
20. Mueller-Roterberg, C. (2018). Handbook of design thinking. Kindle Direct Publishing.
21. Nguyen, L. (2021). Factors influencing museum visits: An empirical study in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(8),0217–0227.
22. Nur Afni Halil, Hashima Mohaini Mohammad, Nor Ez-zatul Hanani Rosli & Audrey Anak John (2018). The exhibition structure and its impact towards visitors’ understanding at a museum. Idealogy, 3 (3), 41-53.
23. Obrist, U.H. (2011). A brief history of curating. Switzerland: Les Presses du Réel. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53ad8347e4b04c5fb2ec922d/t/552eb514e4b0e4e510512b70/1429124372575/hans-ulrich-obrist-a-brief-history-of-curating.pdf
24. Perry, D. L. (2012) What makes learning fun? Principles for the design of intrinsically motivating museum exhibits. AltaMira Press.
25. Phelan, S., Bauer, J., & Lewalter, D. (2018). Visit motivations: Development of a short scale for comparison across sites. Museum Management and Curatorship, 33(1), 25-41.
26. Prentice, R. (1998). Recollections of museum visits: A case study of remembered cultural attraction visiting on the isle of man. Museum Management and Curatorship, 17(1), 41-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647779800401701
27. Qian, W. (2018). Research on the design ideas of exhibition design from the perspective of visual beauty. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 264.
28. Quenneville, A. (2019). Exhibition design: From vision to visitor. Reich+Petch.
29. Roppola, T. (2012). Designing for the museum visitor experience. Routledge.
30. Turpeinen, O. (2006). Researching the visual qualities of exhibition design through experimental and cross disciplinary methods. Nordes 2005: In The Making. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.21606/nordes.2005.052
31. Velarde, G. (2001). Designing exhibitions: Museums, heritage, trade and world fairs (2^nd). Routledge.