Participatory Exhibition Design:Inviting Visitors to Be Part of the Process

Silvia Filippini Fantoni, Indianapolis Museum of Art

The Collection

User-centred Approach

Visitor-Centered Approach

New Exhibition Development Process

• Non-art Museums• Detroit Institute of

Art• Oakland Museum of

California• Denver Art Museum• Brooklyn Museum

Inspiration

Principles

Curator

Layout with

Designer

Content

Idea

Checklist

Other Inter. tools

Public Programs

The Old Exhibition Development Model

• Interdisciplinary core team is created at the start

• Core team includes:• Curator(s)• Interpretation

specialist• Evaluator• Designer• Project Manager

1. Process is more collaborative

Core team

Layout

Content

Idea

Checklist

Other Inter. tools

Public Program

2. Interpretation Specialist Plays a Key Role

• They represent the visitors’ needs at the core team table

• They lead the development process

• They ensure that learning theories are applied

• They are involved in the content development process

3. Identify Big Idea and Outcomes

The landscapes and rich cultural traditions of the Southwest fueled the imaginations of early 20th century artists like Georgia O’Keeffe.

The evocative still life paintings produced by these artists provide a fascinating example of art’s capacity to document the essence of a place.

Big Idea

Learning Outcomes

• The Southwest art scene: Visitors will learn about the early 20th century phenomenon of artists visiting the Southwest

• Defining still life: Visitors will expand their understanding of what a still-life is and what it can convey.

• Creativity: Visitors will be able to express their creativity using the works in the exhibition or elements of Southwestern culture to create their own still lifes.

• Attitude: Visitors will develop a positive attitude toward the museum as a place to explore their creative impulses as well as a place to learn about different cultures.

Learning Outcomes

• Big Idea and Learning Outcomes are used to:• Create Interpretive plan• Develop interpretive

material and experiences• Inform exhibition

structure and layout• Finalize checklist• Support exhibition

planning by staff• Evaluate the success of

the show

4. Incorporate testing and evaluation throughout the process

Methods

n=576

Art Deco Automobiles Duesenbergs Automobile Masterpieces Concept Cars0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

21% 21%

27%

31%

Front-End: Automobile Design

Formative: Robert Indiana

Visitors’ interests:

• Artist’s life (30/40)• Inspiration (30/40)• Process/technique

(26/40)• Artist’s or other’s

explanation about the meaning behind the work (7/40)

Formative: Star Studio

Design Thinking Workshop

Visual Identity Testing

Summative: Exhibition Evaluations

• Assess if learning outcomes have been met

• Assess if expectations regarding level of satisfaction, and use of interpretive tools have been met

• Identify problems that might be addressed in future exhibitions

• Audience demographics & psychographics

Results

Before

After

Better integration and usage of interpretative tools in the exhibition

30-50% 40-60%

46%60%

Successful implementation of participatory projects

40%

60%24%

4,000

Increased visitors attendance

• 44,000 ca. visitors in 2012-2013

• 81,000 ca. visitors in 2013-2014

Increased Satisfaction Level

• Snapshot: 4.49/5• Beauty &

Belief:4.62/5• Ai Weiwei: 4.68/5• Matisse: 4.73/5• Robert Indiana:

4.73/5• Face to Faces:

4.80/5

Outcomes Beauty & Belief Robert Indiana

1 73% 97%2 67% 86%3 67% 79%4 60% 79%5 47% 62%6 40% 34%7 30% 24%8 23%

Key Messages are Communicated more Effectively

• Resistance mostly from curatorial staff

• Resistance from other institutions that are not willing to modify their shows

• More time-consuming

• More contentious

Challenges

• Refine the process• Extend it to non-paid

exhibitions and permanent collection

• How do we apply the process to non-traditional exhibitions?

Next Steps

Questions?

sfantoni@imamuseum.org