Abstract

This study examines how a contemporary museum experience has shifted from its historic role as a space for viewing and contemplating art. Through ethnographic observation across two museums, the research shows an emphasis on entertainment, eating and drinking, child-centered programming, and socializing, but also the traditional museum practices such as docents following scripts, protected displays of art, and austere rooms and spaces. The findings suggest that art, while still present, has become incidental within the museum. This reveals an institutional model caught between a conservative culture and a public looking for casual experiences, and questions the purpose of the entity of a museum, entirely.

Introduction

An art museum is frequently viewed as a place that contains art: paintings and sculptures are displayed, and visitors come to look at those artifacts. But this narrative, perhaps once true, is no longer an accurate representation of what a museum is for and how people experience it. The art in a museum has largely become incidental, second to entertainment and dining, activities for children, and a place to offer simplistic history lessons. Museums, as institutions, have simultaneously created this shift and have worked to avoid it: while they have accepted more casual behaviors from visitors and added programming around art, legacy structures like docenting, austere environments, and unspoken rules of how a visitor should behave still exist. The result is a disjoint story of experience and indicates a larger cultural shift of casualness colliding with formality. This questions the value placed on art in society; if art is no longer valued in a museum, it's unclear how and where most people will appreciate it at all.

The results of this study indicate that museums are caught between preserving art as a cultural element and repackaging themselves as casual entertainment venues. The contribution of the work is in highlighting this tension.

The Historic Role of Museums

For much of their modern existence, museums have been defined by a clear and disciplined purpose: to collect, preserve, and display works of art for public viewing [CITE]. Art objects possess intrinsic cultural value and the museum’s responsibility is to safeguard and present those objects in a manner that highlights their significance [CITE]; this means that paintings hang on walls, sculptures sit on pedestals, and artifacts are arranged with deliberate spacing, careful lighting, and minimal distraction. The objects themselves have been the focus. [CITE]

This artifact-centric orientation shaped the other qualities of the museum space. There is an expectation of austerity in the architecture and interior design of museums, through the use of ornate and baroque decorative elements, or through more modern expansive white walls, high ceilings, subdued and positioned lighting, and restrained signage.

The museum has also functioned as an institutional authority over aesthetic judgment. Curators define what counts as art, and museums have historically tended to be conservative, presenting period-based artifacts from notable segments of history and in predictable forms, such as paintings and sculptures. [CITE]

Visitors have behaved appropriately to this context. Museums have been associated with quiet observation, slow movement, and contemplative attention, and in these environments, visitors are expected to look carefully, but not to touch. [CITE] The norms are rarely stated explicitly, but are signaled by the atmosphere and traditions. Museums have expected their audiences to engage in careful looking, and in intellectual reflection and appreciation; it is assumed that an audience understands art, style, and criticality, and is able to then appreciate the curated artifacts effectively. [CITE]

While museums have a long history of this mature presentation, popular culture has shifted dramatically, and the structures and qualities that defined a successful museum and museum visit in the past may have changed as well. This research study is intended to investigate the staying power of the historically conservative, intellectual, and art-centric museum experience. Specifically, the research explores this question: In what ways has the museum-going experience changed from the historically consistent and predictable style described above, and in what ways has it remained the same?

Research Methodology

Observational research in museums was conducted to understand the relationship between the historic role of museums and the casualization of modern culture.

This study employed short-term, site-based ethnographic observation across two museums, each visited twice for approximately one hour per visit, resulting in four total hours of field engagement. Ethnography is “an approach to understanding cultural life…with the goal of understanding not simply what people are doing, but how they experience what they do” (Dourish 2014, 1). A core tenet of ethnographic inquiry is to observe and understand what people do and say, and to continually reflect and interpret on what is being observed; “at its most basic, observation is just that: the researcher explicitly and self-consciously attending to the events and people in the context they are studying” (Musante and DeWalt 2010, 68). During each museum visit, the researcher observed visitors’ behaviors within exhibit spaces and initiated informal, conversational exchanges with both visitors and museum staff working on the exhibit floor. These interactions were opportunistic and contextually situated, occurring within the natural flow of museum activity rather than through pre-structured interviews.

Data collection consisted of handwritten notes, with particular attention to capturing verbatim phrases where possible. Following each visit, the researcher expanded these notes into detailed fieldnote writeups of approximately four to five pages per session, preserving sequence and context. Each sentence from the expanded fieldnotes was entered into a spreadsheet as a discrete analytic unit to facilitate systematic coding.

Analysis followed an inductive coding process, in the methodological style of grounded theory. This is described by Charmaz (2006, 17) as a way to understand what is happening “through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and research practices.” Open coding was conducted at the sentence level, focusing on developing gerund and concise noun phrase codes (Timmermans and Tavory 2022, 69-90). Codes were exported into a digital whiteboarding environment and clustered through constant comparison, grouping incidents that shared function or patterned similarity. While similar to a patterning approach popularized by thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2023), this clustering differed in the style of cluster naming. Clusters were assigned active, process-oriented titles. Through iterative comparison, these groupings were further developed into a higher-level theoretical account, intended to explain the patterned social processes observed across visits. These findings are described below.

Findings

The main finding of this research is that the art in a museum, once the fundamental reason for a museum to exist, has become incidental. Museum visitors expect an extensive experience, one that is casual, entertaining, and that extends beyond simply looking at artifacts. Museums have struggled to respond, maintaining some traditions, while making other compromises to a purity of experience. The result is a disjoint message as to the cultural significance of a museum, calling into question if the museum can still have a meaningful role in culture at all.

Deemphasized artwork

Across observations, the museum experience extended well beyond looking at art on a wall. Visitors engaged in a range of activities that positioned the museum as much more, including a place for learning, eating, drinking, parenting, socializing, and being entertained. The art was there, but for many, it was not the primary focus of attention.

Children made up a substantial portion of the visitors. Many arrived in school groups, and their time in the museum centered on broad, general education and arts and crafts. They drew, gathered around adults in casual settings, and listened to simplified historical narratives. One docent told a group of children, “remember, every culture has their ideas about how things happen.” She explained that Chinese people believed dragons made the rain, that rain was important for growing rice, and that without rain “they would starve to death.” She mentioned that the afterlife was also important, but did not further explain. Her interactions with children were physically near artwork, but not about artwork. The museum included mobile carts labeled “Storytime Art Cart” and “Interactive Learning Station.” These elements resembled preschool tools more than traditional gallery fixtures, and reinforced the museum as a place of simple instruction and child-centered programming.

Eating and drinking was also prominent. Visitors discussed the museum as a place to eat, in some cases spending more time conversing about food than about the artwork. One woman asked her friend, “where do you want to eat?” and was told that there was a restaurant in the museum. Another pair agreed to have lunch there and sit outside on the patio. The museum was described by visitors using the same language as with other social venues, like restaurants or bars.

The staff is also part of this shift away from a focus on art, and towards a focus on experience. One employee carried the title “Engagement Guide.” She laughed and explained that she was really a museum guide, but that the “CEO [of the museum] made [the new title] up to make it more welcoming.” Another worker described her primary goal as “engaging” with the public. This language is similar to that found in a customer-service model.

Exhibits included more than just objects; periphery content, often in simple language, surrounded the art and the space. Exhibits included timelines and explanatory posters. Two visitors stood in front of a timeline of Chinese history, and one pointed to the Song Dynasty and said, “This is my dynasty.” The interaction centered on personal connection to historical narrative. The art itself was secondary: the visitors spent more time looking at and discussing the poster than the paintings.

Entertainment programming further complicated the museum’s identity. An outdoor orchestra played to visitors as they entered, and a poster in the entrance advertised a “Bollywood Bash,” inviting guests to “Party with a purpose” at the museum later in the month. These events framed the museum as an entertainment venue.

In summary, these observations show that the museum is a multi-purpose venue that includes education, food, social experiences, and entertainment. Art is still there, but competes with these other elements.

Expectations of a casual experience

Visitors appeared to consider the museum as an informal, everyday space. Mobile phones were constantly visible. One man took pictures of every piece of art he encountered. A woman posed for selfies in front of displays of art. Phone use was not discrete, and was not always focused on art; for example, one woman stood in the exhibit hall scheduling appointments, on speakerphone, on her phone. The gallery area was treated by visitors as if it was just another place for everyday life activities. Volume and conversation followed a similar pattern. Phone calls were conducted loudly. People talked with one another like they might in a bar or restaurant.

Interaction with artwork further illustrated this expectation of a casual experience. Traditional museum norms treat displayed artifacts as fragile and off-limits. However, this boundary was tested. One man reached out and touched a work of art. His friend pointed to a nearby sign and said, “It says ‘do not touch,’” and they both laughed. The rule was acknowledged and then ignored. Staff responses reinforced this cavalier approach. A museum employee explained that people touch the art with some frequency, but that it is acceptable because many visitors “don’t go to museums a lot” and therefore do not understand museum etiquette.

Clothing choices further signaled a casual expectation. Visitors dressed as they might at any other public place. A man wore shorts. A teacher guiding children wore fake animal ears as a headband. A boy moved through the galleries in a hooded sweatshirt. Another person wore a tie-dye skirt. The clothing choices did not appear to have been made with the established norms of a museum in mind.

Intimidating, inaccessible artwork

The content of the museum exhibits departed from traditional examples of fine art. Rather than only paintings and sculptures, displays included more challenging objects and installations. In one gallery, a refrigerator was presented as part of an exhibit. In another space, five television screens showed people looking out at the ocean, while a calming ocean sound played loudly in the space. These items did not obviously signal “art” as might a painting. Visitors were unsure of how to respond to these exhibits. A teenage boy looked at a modern piece and dismissed it, saying, “I could do that.” His statement shows he expected art in a museum to be more complicated. Staff were aware of this reaction. An engagement guide explained that much of her role involved speaking with visitors who did not understand or appreciate the art. Because the museum featured a large amount of abstract artwork, she regularly heard responses such as “Is that art?” “I could do that,” “I don’t get it,” and “I don’t like it.”

These observations suggest that while museums have broadened what counts as art, visitors do not have the aesthetic criticality necessary to engage with and enjoy these pieces.

Clinging to traditional attributes

Despite different curatorial programming and casual visitor behavior, many structural elements of the museum are still traditional, as the institution of the museum still tries to formalize the way art is experienced. Docents, for example, are required to follow preset scripts designed to ensure consistency across tour groups. One docent explained that she can only discuss material that appears on the museum’s website because the museum wants “artistic control.” Routes through the museum are predefined; a docent described having to follow a set path during tours. When children are present, she must skip an exhibit about snuff boxes because it is not considered appropriate for younger audiences. The experience is curated by the administration in advance.

The physical environment reinforces a sense of authority. One exhibit was located in a long, curved white room, reached by a winding staircase and separated by a heavy, professional-feeling door. Another space featured sweeping angles, white surfaces, and steel finishes. The architecture and material choices conveyed exclusivity.

Displays further emphasized the more conservative view of the importance of objects. Sculptures were presented inside large glass cubes; silks were shown behind glass; frames established distance between viewer and artifact; the art was protected.

These ideas indicate that even while aspects of the museum are actively shifting, the museum administration still values and holds to more traditional, established aspects of the art-viewing experience.

Discussion

The primary research question driving this study was whether and how a museum visitor’s experience may have changed from the archetypical view of a museum as a place to hold and display artwork. The answer shows museums trapped in a tension of expectations around what constitutes art, and in a casual, experience culture that has emerged in society. Art is still present, and often displayed in conventional ways, but it no longer plays a meaningful role in the museum-going experience.

Visitors seem to view the museum through a lens that has been shaped by a culture of experiences. Time spent at the museum is viewed as a form of paid entertainment. A visit to a museum includes eating, socializing, photographing, learning basic cultural facts, and attending events. Art is a small piece of a larger experience, and as behavior from research showed, visitors often place priority on other parts of that experience.

Visitors expect to have an experience made up of many more interactions than simply viewing works of art. They expect childcare and basic educational activities for their kids. They come to this experience with an expectation of casualness, and are looking to be entertained, not challenged. The art itself is largely incidental, and if it is considered at all, it is with expectations of simplicity. And the museum has changed to support this expectation, as those amenities and experiences are integrated into the museum’s core offerings and business model.

Visitors have gained a sense of confidence-in-ignorance. Previously, it was assumed that visitors to a museum saw value in art because it was in the museum. This has shifted; comments like “I could do that” or “I don’t get it” signal that if meaning is not obvious, it is the art (and artist) that has failed, not the viewer. Staff struggle to navigate this.

But the institution of the museum has only partially changed, and some of the traditional indicators of art-focused exclusivity remain. The space is still physically impressive and intimidating; objects and artifacts are behind glass, elevating the art; docents are told what to say and where to go, in order to maintain a consistent, and conservative, experience; the institution of the museum is struggling to remain true to its historic roots.

The resulting experience is confusing. Is this a casual place for relaxing and socializing, like a food court at a mall? Is this a place for everyone to understand art, even if they haven’t been trained in art criticism? Or is this a place that is elite and traditional, a place that isn’t for the general public and instead is only for those with money, or knowledge, or a particularly honed set of values?

This in turn questions museums, generally. What is a museum for, if not for contemplating art? If a museum is for viewing and exploring the aesthetic qualities of artifacts, then unrelated programming that attracts a casual public should be eliminated. If it is for entertainment and childcare, there is little reason for including artwork at all. And if it exists as a place to build contextual understanding, the art remains only as a backdrop for a history lesson.

The results of this study present this challenge: museums are caught between preserving art as an exclusive cultural authority and repackaging themselves as a multipurpose venue.

Conclusion

Museums signal to the public that they are about art, but in practice they function as mixed-use cultural spaces that include entertainment, education, and a place for socializing. This creates a contradiction, where art is protected and elevated, but it is no longer central to why many people visit. This study indicates that museums must resolve this tension, or risk presenting a confused offering that only partially satisfies their visitors.

Limitations

This study is limited by its small sample of two museums and only four total hours of observation; it's a baby paper! Observations were conducted during daytime hours, which likely overrepresented school groups and underrepresented other visitor demographics and behaviors.

References

1. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2023. "Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher." International Journal of Transgender Health (Taylor & Francis) 24 (1): 1-6. doi:10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597.
2. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publishing.
3. Dourish, Paul. 2014. "Reading and Interpreting Ethnography." In Ways of Knowing in HCI, by Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_1.
4. Musante, Kathleen, and Billie R. DeWalt. 2010. Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Bloomsbury Publishing.
5. Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2022. Data Analysis in Qualitative Research: Theorizing with Abductive Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.