Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ELSEVIER
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
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
221
222
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.
223
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
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
Table 2
Self-reported annual income levels
Annual income
Percent
25
21
14
12
4
6
14
4
225
Table 3
Anticipated duration of visit today
Amount of time
Percent
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.
226
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
I feel
uncomfortable
in the museum
I am here today
to learn
23
10
24
16
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
13
10
17
11
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
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
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.
229
o.o.
I
6.
~ 0 0 0
II
~o
qQq~q
II
2 d d d d d
I
'~--
.0 0
q q q q q q q q
II II II II
II
.o
q
~
I
I
c;
II
o
c-
o-i.~
p..
~ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
III
r~
<
<
I I I I
~_9 _~-~_=
~'~
~~~
230
N
z
T 20
15
10
o V / , ( / / / ~LowKnowledge
1
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,
23
.o
O
-7.
fl
to
r.~
<5
t-
in
to
II
ta
I
o
II
to
fl
--"
,..
..:
to
II
o.
o.
O
II
to
II
to
c5
I
II
,:5
I
II
to
~r
<
<5u
,-.
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
,.-:~
,~J
',7,
"v v
t,~ t=
~ ~ ~ ~
~ i ~ ~-:~~
232
35
30
25
20
15
/ / /
10
Knowledge
/ f / / / //~/ //~/ /Low Knowledge
2 3 4 5 6
Rating
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
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
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
////=
E
C~ 30
E
25
.....
/'
//
//
T 2o
~5 "" .'"
""
x~\\\\\\\\\\~x~x\x\\x
:::::::::::::~7
/// / / / /Moderate
Knowledge
1
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
Rating
Fig. 6. Visitation plans.
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
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
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
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.