Robb Hyde wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not certain how you evaluate what a visitor has learned from an
exhibit----do you conduct a pre-test and post-test?

And, do you ask a visitor "How much was your quality of life improved by
today's visit?"

And then how does the museum director include this information on his
resume? "Quality of life of visitors to my museum was imporved by an
average of 20%!"

Visitor evaluation is a worthy project. Find out what is attracting
people to your museum and create exhibitions in response to their
interests and needs---this should lead to improved attendance and kudos,
promotions and new jobs for all, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Regarding the last paragraph above, that's all I was saying.  I'm not
sure why you felt the need to be sarcastic.  I *have* seen visitor
surveys that showed whether people got the message that the curators
intended, how much of the text they read and were interested in, etc.,
as well as whether they basically enjoyed themselves and would like to
go to similar exhibits in the future, and the demographics of who was
there and why they decided to come to the museum.  I think that's useful
information to have.  All I am suggesting is that listening to the
visitors grounds the museum program in reality--the topic was
overselling, which implies you don't know who your audience is, why
they're there, and how big an audience is really out there for what you
do, so you can grow to a manageable, realistic size.  As someone else
noted, museums aren't the same as mass entertainment.

As regards Julia's comments below, I absolutely agree.  I am
disheartened by the trend where funding agencies have determined that
art is not to be valued for itself, but has to serve some practical
social work-type purpose.  If people want to do community service-type
work that is art-related I am all for it (I spent 10 years working for
an organization that was specifically set up for that purpose), but the
art that is produced by those projects is *not* the same thing as art
produced by a committed artist in a lifelong process of developing his
or her work.  I worry that the latter is progressively devalued by arts
funders and that individual artist fellowships are a vanishing breed.

--Helen Glazer
Goucher College, Baltimore, MD, USA
[log in to unmask]

Julia Moore wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A minor rant on the topic of the "results" of museum programming:

For those of us who provide programs to youth "at risk," there are
increasingly difficult standards of "how have we helped?" being applied
by
the funding agencies (HUD, various drug elimination agencies, etc.).  If
the
program presenter cannot conclusively demonstrate that any positive
results
(i.e., less gang activity, decreased drug use, less vandalism, etc.) can
be
DIRECTLY attributed to the specific program in question, funding will
not be
granted again and the presenter may even have to return funds.

To design a program to yield the appropriate results (and I believe it
is
impossible to trace the desired results in the short term for such
programs--they demand long-term follow-up which takes additional funds)
means that the focus is on the pre/post testing rather than on the
program
itself.   I think this is doing the kids a huge disservice and adding to
the
already overwhelming paperwork load in this country.  Let's not spread
this
misery to the general population through our museums!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>