Abstract
There is increasing awareness that the perception of art is affected by the way it is presented. In 2018, the Austrian Gallery Belvedere redisplayed its permanent collection. Our multidisciplinary team seized this opportunity to investigate the viewing behavior of specific artworks both before and after the museum’s rearrangement. In contrast to previous mobile eye tracking (MET) studies in museums, this study benefits from the comparison of two realistic display conditions (without any research interference), an unconstrained study design (working with regular museum visitors), and a large data sample (comprising 259 participants). We employed a mixed-method approach that combined mobile eye tracking, subjective mapping (a drawing task in conjunction with an open interview), and a questionnaire in order to relate gaze patterns to processes of meaning-making. Our results show that the new display made a difference in that it 1) generally increased the viewing times of the artworks; 2) clearly extended the reading times of labels; and 3) deepened visitors’ engagement with the artworks in their exhibition reflections. In contrast, interest in specific artworks and art form preferences proved to be robust and independent of presentation modes.
Highlights
Since the 18th century, with the birth of the public museum, the way art is presented has been crucial to discussions about its perception (Bennett, 1995; Müller & Möhlmann, 2014; Noordegraaf, 2004; Staniszewski, 1998; Ward, 1991)
The idea that the “what” and the “how” of an exhibition provides meaning has become a commonplace of contemporary museum and curatorial studies. This new emphasis is pivotal to research on art perception, as Pelowski, Forster et al (2017) state: “Factors related to the presentational context may mark the most overlooked and potentially most fruitful area for future research on the psychology of art.”
How substantial is the influence of display on our museum experience? And to what extent does display really matter with respect to different viewing patterns? To answer these questions, studies on art perception need to transfer their site of research from the laboratory to the museum itself
Summary
Since the 18th century, with the birth of the public museum, the way art is presented has been crucial to discussions about its perception (Bennett, 1995; Müller & Möhlmann, 2014; Noordegraaf, 2004; Staniszewski, 1998; Ward, 1991). The idea that the “what” and the “how” of an exhibition provides meaning has become a commonplace of contemporary museum and curatorial studies This new emphasis is pivotal to research on art perception, as Pelowski, Forster et al (2017) state: “Factors related to the presentational context may mark the most overlooked and potentially most fruitful area for future research on the psychology of art.”. To date, most eye tracking studies on art perception have been conducted in laboratories and with two-dimensional reproductions of artworks. While these studies have delivered remarkable results, they have severe limitations: The difference between an original artwork and its reproduction is referential but essential; the effect of a museum’s presentational context clearly cannot be studied in a laboratory setting. When moving from the lab to the museum, looking at art is embedded into socio-spatial constellations known to be far more engaging and satisfying (Brieber et al, 2014, 2015; Grüner et al, 2019; Specker et al, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
