Warhol audience research project

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

An Audience Research Project in the Andy Warhol Museum

Nancy C. Lu Summer 2005

0

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

Contents Acknowledgements

2

I. Introduction

2

II. Findings and Analysis

4

• General Profiles of Visitors

4

• Visitors’ Motivations

13

• Length and Pace of Visit

15

• Experiences in the Warhol Museum

26

• Visitors and the Art

31

• Perceptions of the Warhol Museum

40

• Expectations of the Warhol Museum

45

III. Overall Conclusions

47

IV. Bibliography

49

Appendices Appendix 1: Time Table Appendix 2: The Questionnaire Appendix 3: The Fifth Floor Datasheet Appendix 4: The First Floor Datasheet

1

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to the Andy Warhol Museum for the opportunity to carry out this research.

In particular, I would like to record my thanks to Colleen Russell Criste, Associate Director for External Affairs and Director of Development. Her support, patience, and enthusiasm have made this research possible. Thanks also to all the staff for their understanding and affability whilst I glided about the galleries.

Thanks to Cathy Silvern, and to my friends and family for all of their constant emotional and practical support.

Last but not least, thanks to all of those visitors to the AWM who gave up their time to take part in the survey. Without their critiques and comments, this research could not have been carried out.

INTRODUCTION

In the summer of 2005, I, as a student at Carnegie Mellon University was introduced by the Andy Warhol Museum to a unique opportunity for collaboration. From the outset, it was a mutually beneficial study. The entire research process was an invaluable experience for, while the Andy Warhol Museum (AWM) benefited by gaining important feedback from visitors.

The research process began with a meeting with Colleen Russell Criste to explain the museum’s hopes and expectations for the study. Based upon discussions, we determined that objectives of the study were to generate information about visitors’ general profiles and behavior patterns in specific galleries (e.g., average time spent, least and most popular elements), as well as to learn how visitors view the museum and what improvements they feel would be important. The target group of the study was independent visitors, including both lone individuals and social or family groups, but did not include organized groups, such as

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

3

school fieldtrips. The fieldwork was conducted during July of 2005. A timetable of days when fieldwork was conducted is provided in the Appendix.

The methodology of the study was straightforward: an exit questionnaire survey and a visitor observation study. A standardized questionnaire was used for the questionnaire survey. A standardized template was used for the visitor observation study in order to record visitors’ movement and behavior in the galleries. Please see the appendix for the list of questions and the design of the datasheet. Visitors were recruited to take part in an exit questionnaire on their arrival. A slip of paper with a number and a current time was given to each visitor who agreed to take part in the survey. When a visitor finished a visit, he or she showed the number to me. The purpose of the number was to count the total time he or she spent in the AWM and to track the number of visitors that never return their survey. In order to randomize the sample, every third visitor entering the AWM was asked if he or she would be willing to take part in the questionnaire survey. In the case of the visitor observation study, every third visitor entering the galleries in question was timed and tracked. Visitors who completed the questionnaires were not the same visitors being timed and tracked in the target venues.

Initially, the AWM wished to conduct the visitor observation study in the whole museum.

However, due to time constraints, it was then decided to observe and track visitors only on the fifth floor, Gallery G02 and the lobby.

Overall, 128 visitors were recruited to take part in the questionnaire survey. Among them, 15 visitors declined to take part in the survey, 60 visitors never come back for the survey, and 53 completed the survey. The response rate to the questionnaire survey was 42%. The visitor observation study totaled 42, 40 and 34 visitors on the fifth floor, Gallery G02 and the lobby, respectively.

By studying how visitors behaved, as well as what they said and how they felt about the AWM, the outcome of the study was to produce a report providing rich descriptions of visitor’s actual and perceived encounters with the AWM and its displays.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

4

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

This section provides the research findings and analysis of the data. The names of all the participants in the study have been changed. In order to make it easier for readers to identify a single voice, and to build a picture of the people who have generously participated in the study, fictive names were used and only selected demographic data (age, place of residence, occupation, etc.) was included in this report.

General Profiles of Visitors

The gender, educational background, employment status and the distance people had traveled to the AWM were important factors in visitors’ motivation for visiting and their expectations of visits. In this section, an exploration of demographic data allows the creation of a general profile of visitors.

Data of visitors’ gender and age were collected from both the questionnaire survey and the visitor observation study. Although the visitor observation study did not record visitors’ opinions, the gender and estimated age group of 116 visitors were recorded in order to make a comparison with the findings from the questionnaire survey. In regard to visitors’ gender, data collected from the questionnaire survey showed that about 55% of the AWM visitors were female and 45% were male. See Table 1.

Table 1.

Visitors’ Gender Visitors' Gender Number % Female 29 55% Male 24 45% Total 53 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

5

Data collected from the visitor observation study showed that about 53% of the AWM visitors were female and 47% were male. See Table 2.

Table 2.

Visitors’ Gender Visitors' Gender Number % Female 62 53% Male 54 47% Total 116 100%

Note. Data collected from the visitor observation study.

Interestingly, although data were collected using different methods, the results were similar.

Both sets of results showed that the percentage of female visitors was slightly higher than the percentage of male visitors to the AWM. Table 3 shows the combination of data collected by both methods: approximately, 54% of the AWM visitors were female, and 46% were male.

Table 3.

Visitors’ Gender

Female Male Total

Visitors' Gender Number 91 78 169

% 54% 46% 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey combined with data collected from the visitor observation study.

In terms of visitors’ age groups, data collected from the questionnaire survey showed that the majority of visitors were between 18 and 50 years old. See Table 4.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

6

Table 4.

Visitors’ Age Group Visitors' Age Groups Number % Under 13 0 0% 13-15 0 0% 16-17 1 2% 18-24 15 28% 25-34 12 23% 35-44 7 13% 45-54 9 17% 55-64 6 11% 65-74 3 6% 75 or older 0 0% Total 53 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

Data collected from the visitor observation study revealed that the majority of visitors were in their 20s to 50s. See Table 5.

Table 5.

Visitors’ Age Groups

<20 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s >60s Total

Visitors' Age Groups Number % 6 5% 25 22% 26 22% 21 18% 26 22% 12 10% 0 0% 116 100%

Note. Data collected from the visitor observation study.

Again, data collected by two different methods showed similar results. A comparison of the findings from the different methods allows the findings to be validated.

In regard to visitors’ education level, employment status and annual household income, Tables 6 to 8 show that the majority of visitors had a higher education level and income than the general population.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

7

Table 6.

Visitors’ Education Level Education Level Less than high school graduate High school graduate College graduate (undergraduate) Post-graduate work or degree Total

Number % 1 7 25 20 53

2% 13% 47% 38% 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Visitors’ Annual Household Incomes

Visitors’ Employment Status

Annual Household Income Number % Under $15,000 5 12% $15,000 to $24,999 3 7% $25,000 to $34,999 3 7% $35,000 to $49,999 6 15% $50,000 to $74,999 9 22% $75,000 or more 15 37% Refused 12 * Total 53 Valid sample 41

Employment Status Number % Full-time 31 58% Part-time 5 9% Homemaker 3 6% Retired 1 2% Unemployment 1 2% 23% Student 12 Total 53 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

As shown in Table 6, 47% of visitors held a bachelor’s degree, and about 38% of visitors held a post-graduate degree. Table 7 and Table 8 show that the majority of visitors were professionals who earned more than $50,000 per year. These results reinforced the results shown in other visitor studies: people who have higher educational levels and annual household incomes are more likely to be museum goers.

Taking these findings further, a close look at the numbers of museums visitors have visited during the past 12 months is useful. A strong indicator of whether museum going is a regular activity there is to explore people’s frequency of visiting museums in the past 12 months.

Table 9 shows the number of museums visitors have gone to during the past 12 months.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

Table 7.

Numbers of Museums Visitors Have Visited During the Past 12 Months Numbers of Museums Visitors Have Visited During the Past 12 Months Frequency Number % 0 1 2% 1~2 17 32% 3~5 17 32% 6~8 4 8% more than 9 14 26% Total 53 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

This result showed that more than 50% of the AWM visitors have visited at least 3 museums during the past 12 months, meaning that for the majority of visitors, going to museums is a regular activity.

While Table 9 shows the numbers of museums visitors have gone to during the past 12 months, Table 10 shows visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; frequency of visiting the AWM.

Table 8.

Past 12 Months Visitation in the AWM Past 12 Months Visitation Number % First time 41 77% This month 0 0% 2-6 months 4 8% 7-12 months ago 4 8% More than a year ago 4 8% 100% 53

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

As Table 10 shows, 77% of visitors were first time visitors, and only 23% were returning visitors. Table11 shows that more than 50% of visitors who took part in the survey were not likely to revisit the museum in the next 12 months.

8

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

9

Table 9.

Intended Visitation in the Next 12 Months Intended Visitation in the Next 12 Months % Number Very likely 10 19% Somewhat likely 13 25% Not too likely 12 23% Not all likely 18 34% Total 53 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

The low revisiting rate is an issue of concern. However, it is worth noticing that many visitors mentioned the long distance between their home and the museum as a problem.

“I’d like to visit it again, but I live in Germany.” Herbert, German student on holiday in Pittsburgh, living in Freudenberg, aged 18-24

This comment implied a correlation between the distance visitors had traveled from home to the museum and the feasibility of becoming a regular visitor. In view of this finding, Table 12 presents visitors’ origins.

Table 10.

Visitors’ Origins Visitors' Origins Pittsburgh locality residence Living within 30-50 miles of the Pittsburgh area Living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area Student living in the area Total

Number 14 4 33 2 53

% 26% 8% 62% 4% 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

Table 12 shows that the percentage of local visitors was low. Essentially, the majority of visitors lived more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area; in fact, many of them were people who traveled from other states or other countries.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

10

This result validated the correlation between the distance people had traveled from home to the AWM and the feasibility of becoming a regular visitor. The finding also suggested that visitors who were not living in Pittsburgh were not likely to revisit the museum in the next 12 months.

In addition to the low revisiting rate, member visiting was lower than expected. Table 13 reveals that more than 90% of visitors were not members of Carnegie Museums.

Table 11.

Member Visiting Member Visiting Number Member 4 Non-member 49 Total 53

% 8% 92% 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

In general, visitors who did not live in Pittsburgh were not likely join Carnegie Museums.

Given the high percentage of out-of-town visitors; it is understandable the percentage of member visits was low. Overall, the above results indicate, encouraging more local Pittsburgh residents to become regular visitors is an important issue for the AWM.

As for the ethnicity mix, Table 14 shows an overview of visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; race and ethnicity.

Table 12.

Visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Ethnic Background Ethnic Background Quantity African-American 1 Asian 1 Caucasian 44 Hispanic 1 Native American 1 Other 5 Total 53

% 2% 2% 83% 2% 2% 9% 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

11

Table shows that more than 80% of visitors were Caucasian. Although a significant number of visitors were from outside Pittsburgh area, this kind of result appeals to reflect the ethnic mix in Allegheny County and Pennsylvania. According to the U.S. Census Bureauâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2002 report, about 84% of Allegheny county residents were Caucasian and about 85% of Pennsylvania residents were Caucasian. Given the low percentage of non-Caucasian residences in Allegheny county and Pennsylvania, it is not surprising that the majority of visitors were Caucasian.

In addition to the above issues, the type and size of visiting groups are related issues that need to be explored. In terms of the visiting group type, Table 15 shows that rather than visiting alone, visitors usually came to the museum with others.

Table 13.

Visiting Group Type I Visiting Group Type I Number Alone 6 With friends 27 With Family 20 Total 53

% 11% 51% 38% 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

Table 16 shows that 13% of visiting groups contained local Pittsburgh visitors only, 51% of visiting groups contained out-of- town visitors only, and 36% of visiting groups contained both Pittsburgh locals and out-of-town guests.

Table 14.

Visiting Group Type II Visiting Group Type II number Pittsburgh locals only 7 Out of town visitors only 27 Pittsburgh locals+ out of town guests 19 Total 53

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

13% 51% 36% 100%

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

12

To a certain degree, the fact that over 50% of visiting groups were made up of out-of-towners confirmed the findings regarding visitors’ origins, shown in Table 12. Essentially, the majority of visitors were people who traveled far from their homes to Pittsburgh. In terms of group size, Table 17 and Table 18 summarize the average group size.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Visiting Group Size

Visiting Group Size

Group Size I Number One Two Three Four Five or more Total

% 7 24 12 4 6 53

13% 45% 23% 8% 11% 100%

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

1 2 3 4 5 5+ Total

Group Size II Number 38 61 10 7 0 0 116

% 33% 53% 9% 6% 0% 0% 100%

Note. Data collected from the Visitor observation.

Again, although data were collected using different methods, the results were similar. On average, the group size was between one to three people. The most comment group size was two people.

In terms of the age mix, Table 19 and Table 20 show the age mix in groups of visitors.

Table 19.

Table 20.

Visitors’ Age Mix

Visitors’ Age Mix

Age Mix I Number % Under 18 8 No under 18 45 53

15% 85% 100%

Adults Adults+Kids

Age Mix II Number 101 15 116

87% 13% 100%

Note. Data collected from the visitor observation study.

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

These results showed that the majority of visitors were adults. The percentage of child visitors was very low. Both the data collected from the questionnaire survey and that collected from

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

13

the visitor observation study showed that only a few visitors brought children to the AWM. On reflection, it appears that the museum was perceived as not appropriate for children. The following comment is revealing:

“A reminder- several of the exhibitions are NOT appropriate for children.” Alice, elementary school teacher, aged 45-54, local resident of Pittsburgh

Overall, although data were collected using different methods and the sample sizes were not large, many of the findings above were consistent with the findings of the research conducted in 2002. This suggests that confidence in the study is appropriate.

Visitors’ Motivations

Visitors’ motivations for visiting the museum were varied, as shown in Table 21.

Table 21.

What Prompted Your Visit Today?

What Prompted Your Visit Today?

Frequency The name of the museum 14 Wanted an educational/intellectual experience 13 Wanted to show to an out-of town guest 11 Wanted to do something different 11 A recommendation from a local friend/family 8 A particular exhibition 6 Website 1 Special event 0

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

In response to the question, “What prompted your visit today?” the majority of visitors framed their answers in terms of the name of the museum. The second most frequently cited answer was the desire for an intellectual experience. Others said they wanted to do something

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

14

different. Such responses showed visitors’ familiarity with the artist and the curiosity about exploring the connection between the artist and his hometown.

“I have seen Warhols in many museums across the country. I want to see what was in his hometown museum.” Lucy, marketing researcher, aged 65-74, lives in Chicago

As well as the above factors that prompted a visit, many local residents mentioned that they came to the museum in order to introduce an out-of-town guest. This motivation was revealed in Table 16, as noted above. For those visitors, going to the museum itself was a socialcultural activity. It provided a good opportunity for visitors to affirm social or family relationships. In many cases, visiting the museum was a purely social event. Visitors came to the museum to embrace a cultural experience, chatting in front of works of art on topics not necessarily about art. For example, for one group of females over 60, a visit to the AWM was a social and recreational event. They came to the museum in order to celebrate a friend’s birthday.

A couple of visitors said that they had come to the museum to see a particular exhibition.

Those visitors knew exactly that the museum displays not only Warhol’s artworks, but also some other contemporary artworks. Many of them mentioned that they came particularly to see John Waters: Change of Life, and Andy’s Porn.

“We are coming to see the John Waters exhibitions.” Jimmy, software designer, aged 25-34, living within 30-50 miles of the Pittsburgh area

In some cases, this group of visitors comprised savvy returning visitors who came to the museum frequently to check on what’s happening.

“I was happy about today’s visit but was really looking forward to seeing more Warhol and Basquiat collaborative paintings since last visiting. But it was still really good.” Thomas, student, aged 25-34, lives in Indianapolis, IN

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

15

“I enjoyed revisiting old friends (works). I enjoyed the history on display since Andy Warhol saved everything!” Malcolm, elected official, aged 65-74, local resident of Pittsburgh

Interestingly, by using the expression “old friends,” the visitor was showing a familiarity of the content of the museum.

Only one visitor said he visited the museum because the museum website intrigued his curiosity. The rest of the visitors made the visit for various other reasons. For example, a group of visitors said they were inspired to visit because they saw “Explore PA” on PBS. Two girls in their 20s came to see the Waters’ exhibition because it was required for a school course. A few visitors were inspired to visit the AWM for unusual reasons. One group of visitors said they decided to enter the museum to sit down and have a cup of coffee when they passed the “Warhol Café” sign.

A man in his 40s said that he made an unplanned visit because he had nothing to do before the baseball game began at Heinz field. As a result, he spent just less than an hour in the AWM. Interestingly, similar cases occurred frequently during game week. The number of visitors was higher than usual when there were games played in the Heinz field.

Overall, these results showed that for the majority of visitors, the AWM itself was their primary destination. They came to the museum for learning or education. In most cases, visitors came to visit something which was new to them. And in some cases, they came to renew a former acquaintance.

Length and Pace of Visit

In the previous section, visitors’ motivations for visiting the museum were discussed. The related issue of the length and pace of visits is worth a close look.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

16

The total duration visitors spent in the galleries reflects the degree to which they paid attention to the content and context of the exhibitions. Usually, the more time a visitor spent in the galleries, the more attention he or she paid to the elements of the exhibition. In this study, the duration spent by visitors in the galleries was measured in minutes. Visitors had to spend at least one minute in an exhibition; otherwise, they were not counted in our sample.

Some might ask about the case of visitors exiting and returning later to the same exhibition.

Indeed, this did happen sometimes. When it was noticed that visitors returned, additional time was tracked and added to the earlier observation. Fortunately, this did not happen very often, and thus it did not cause a problem in analyzing the results. a problem.

As noted above, visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; entry and exit times were recorded in order to count the total duration spent in the whole museum. Although 53 questionnaires were collected, these represent a cumulative sample of only 46 visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; total duration in the museum. This was because seven visitors declined to take part in the survey at the beginning of their visits but changed their minds and completed the questionnaires after visiting the museum.

Figure 1 summarizes the average total time spent by visitors in the AWM.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

Variable

N

N*

Mean

SE Mean

StDev

Minimum

Q1

Median

Q3

Total time

46

7

83.07

6.70

45.41

30.00

58.75

71.50

89.00

Variable

Maximum

Total time

17

260.00

21

20

Frequency

15 12

10

5

4

4 3 1

0

1 0

60

80

0

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 Total time (in minutes)

Figure 1. Total time spent by visitors in the AWM (in minutes). N=46 visitors.

Each bar represents the number of visitors in the whole museum sample who spent the corresponding total time shown on the horizontal axis. N=46, meaning that the total sample size in the case is 46. N*=7, representing seven cases of missing data. On arrival, most visitors expected to spend between 1-2 hours in the AWM. However, it was found that only a few visitors spent less than an hour or more than two hours in the museum. Out of the 46 visitors for whom we obtained data, 80% spent less than 120 minutes (=2 hours), and only 20% spent more than 120 minutes. The shortest time anyone spent was 30 minutes, while the longest time anyone spent was 260 minutes (= 4 hours and 20 minutes). The average total time shown by the data from the whole museum was 83 minutes (=1 hours and 23 minutes).

In regard to this result, one could argue that the average time spent is misleading because some visitors spent more time in the museum, while others spent much less time. Indeed, the extremes did happen; however, most of the 46 distributions of visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; total time spent within the museum showed that the densest concentrations of times were at the lower times of the graph, meaning that the majority of visitors did spend roughly the same amount of time in the

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

18

museum. Only a minority spent much longer or much less time there. Due to the right-skewed distribution in this case, the median is 72 minutes (=1 hour and 12 minutes), about 10 minutes less than the average time.

On balance, the average length of visits to the AWM was quite long. However, the pace of visitors moving through individual galleries was relatively fast. Figure 2 shows the average total time spent by visitors on the fifth floor.

Variable

N

N*

Mean

SE Mean

StDev

Minimum

Q1

Median

Q3

Total time

42

0

8.960

0.932

6.037

1.200

5.150

7.650

11.050

Variable

Maximum

Total time

37.300

18

17

16 14

13

Frequency

12 10 8

8 6 4

3

2 0

1 0

0

5

10

0

15 20 25 Total time (in minutes)

0

30

35

Figure 2. Total time spent by visitors on the fifth floor (in minutes). N=42 visitors.

Although the works of art displayed on the fifth floor were very popular with visitors (see Experiences in the Warhol Museum section), the record showed that the majority of visitors spent between 5-10 minutes on the fifth floor, and only 20% of visitors spent more than 15 minutes there. The average total time spent by visitors on the fifth floor was 9.0 minutes.

Similar to the results for the fifth floor, the average total time visitors spent in Gallery G02 and the lobby was relatively short, as Figure 3 and Figure 4 show.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

Variable

N

N*

Mean

SE Mean

StDev

Minimum

Q1

Median

Q3

Maximum

0

3.887

0.362

2.290

1.000

2.100

3.100

5.525

11.300

Total time 40

19

10

10

9

Frequency

8

6 5

5

4 3

3 2

2

1

1

1 0

0

2

4

6 8 Total time (in minutes)

10

Figure 3. Total time spent by visitors in Gallery G02 (in minutes). N=40 visitors.

Variable

N

Total time 34

Mean

SE Mean

StDev

Minimum

Q1

Median

Q3

Maximum

0

3.774

0.749

4.364

1.000

1.100

2.200

4.100

21.500

14

14 12

N*

12

Frequency

10 8 6

5

4

3 2

2 0

1 0

0

5

0

10 15 Total time (in minutes)

0

0

20

Figure 4. Total time spent by visitors in the lobby (in minutes). N=34.

The record showed that visitors spent only 3.9 minutes and 3.8 minutes on average in Gallery G02 and the lobby, respectively. This was surprising, because Gallery G02 and the lobby were the venues visitors first encountered when they entered the museum. One explanation for this is that the majority of visitors followed the staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recommendation to start their visit on the seventh floor and move down to the first floor. Thus, the first floor was usually the last

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

20

stop of a visit. It is understandable that when visitors first entered the galleries, they had a desire to see everything in the museum.

In regard to the average time visitors spent in the lobby, it was, in fact, shorter than what the record showed. As noted above, the data did not include those visitors who spent less than 1 minute at the venue. However, it was found during the survey that a majority of visitors spent less than one minute in the lobby. Although a significant number of visitors spent quite a lot of time in the lobby, most of them did not look at any particular work of art or do anything related to their museum visit. For them, the lobby was simply a resting area, not a venue in which to view artworks in the museum.

While the length of visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; overall time in the museum has been discussed, the number of stops visitors made at available elements in the three target venues is also interesting. The available elements in this study were defined as all the components in the physical spaces accessible to self-guiding visitors. These could be conceptual or physical. For example, an element could be a place to stop to look more closely, read a label, watch an audio visual device or write personal comments.

Although at the time of the survey some artworks had been removed or replaced, their absence did not cause significant differences in the number of elements. Usually, when an artwork was removed, the staff soon replaced it with an alternative artwork. In a very few cases, visitors were confused about the missing of artworks. Overall, there were some artworks being replaced during the survey, but this did not cause a change in the number of total elements in the target venues. The total elements in this study were 36, 10, and 6 on the fifth floor, Gallery G02 and the Lobby, respectively. Figure 5 shows that visitors made an average of 11 stops on the fifth floor.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

Variable

N

N*

Mean

SE Mean

StDev

Minimum

Q1

Median

Q3

5th Floor

42

0

11.500

0.699

4.528

2.000

7.750

12.000

15.000

Variable

Maximum

5th Floor

21.000

14

14 12

Frequency

10 8

7

7

6

5 4

4 2

2

2

1

0

5

10

15

20

Total stops

Figure 5. Frequency distributions of stops on the fifth floor (raw numbers). N=42.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 summarize the results that visitors made five and three stops, on average, in Gallery G02 and the lobby, respectively.

Variable G02

N

N*

Mean

SE Mean

StDev

Minimum

Q1

Median

Q3

Maximum

40

0

5.325

0.366

2.314

1.000

3.000

6.000

7.000

9.000

9

9 8

7

7 6

Count

6

5

5 4

4

4

3 2

2

2 1

1 0

2

4

6

8

Total stops

Figure 6. Frequency distribution of stops in Gallery G02 (raw numbers). N=40.

21

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

Variable Lobby

N

N*

Mean

SE Mean

StDev

Minimum

Q1

Median

Q3

Maximum

34

0

3.294

0.191

1.115

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

22

12 11

10

9 8

Frequency

8

6 5

4

2 1

0

1

2

3 Total stops

4

5

Figure 7. Frequency distribution of stops in the lobby (raw numbers). N=34.

Rather than looking exclusively at the mean and median stops at exhibition elements, it is useful to observe the correlation between time and percentage of stops at exhibition elements.

Figures 8 to 10 summarize the time visitors spent and stops they made within individual venues.

40 35 Total time

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.00 y = 17.984x + 3.2 R2 = 0.1404

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

Percentage of stops

Figure 8. Plot of visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; total time and percentage of stops on the fifth floor. N=42.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

23

12.0

Total time

10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.20 y = 5.526x + 0.9328 R2 = 0.312

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Percentage of stops

Figure 9. Plot of visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; total time and percentage of stops in Gallery G02. N=40.

25.0 Total time

20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 y = -3.4713x + 5.673 Percentage of stops R2 = 0.0218

0.80

1.00

Figure 10. Plot of visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; total time and percentage of stops in the lobby. N=34.

Each dot represents a visitor. In Figure 8 and Figure 9, the slope of the regression is from the lower left to the upper right, meaning that as visitors spent more time, they made more stops.

In Figure 8, the regression value is r2= 0.1404, indicating a weaker relationship between the two variables. In other words, more time spent did not indicate more stops. In Figure 9, the regression value is r2= 0.312, indicating a much stronger relationship between the two variables. Although in Figure 8 and Figure 9 the relationships between time and percentage of stops are both positive, they are not very strong, because both r2 are less than 0.5.

Observations of visitors on the fifth floor showed that many visitors moved through and away from the exhibitions very quickly. The majority of visitors went down the stairs from the sixth

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

24

floor, went into the room near the stairs, turned right, walked through the hallway, turned left to the Silver Clouds exhibition, and then walked into Gallery 501. Visitors usually spent quite a bit of time at the Silver Clouds exhibition. Obviously, the unique style of the Silver Clouds exhibition was appealing to most visitors. They spent the most time looking at, touching and playing with Silver Clouds, but bypassed or overlooked other works of art on the fifth floor.

In fact, a couple of visitors walked through the fifth floor hallway to the Silver Clouds exhibition immediately upon arrival.

“Let’s just simply go see my favorite Silver Clouds.” Man (in his 60s?) to his friends as they walked through the hallway.

This factor explains why the relationship between total time and percentage of stops was weak as some visitors spent all or much of the time at one or two exhibitions. Another explanation for this lack of correlation is that quite a few visitors spent a huge amount of time on John Chamberlain’s sofas in the hallway. To a certain degree, John Chamberlain’s sofas were a successful addition to the exhibition milieu. In either an aesthetic or ergonomic way, the sofas were appreciated. Observations showed that many visitors were curious about the installation of the sofas. Many of them were shy about inquiring whether it was permitted to sit on the sofas or not, because they interpreted the sofas as one of the exhibition artworks.

However, once the staff explained that sitting on the sofas was allowed, visitors were delighted by the opportunity to sit down on the “artwork”.

Whilst visitors tended to spent more time but made fewer stops on the fifth floor, the majority of them spent less time but made more stops in Gallery G02 and the lobby. The familiarity of the celebrities depicted in the artworks intrigued visitors into looking at the works of art more actively. Observation of visitors in Gallery G02 showed that most visitors made a stop at each element in the venue. They read the labels along Warhol’s Elvis Presley print and the Brigitte Bardot and Marilyn Monroe photographs. For them, the celebrity portraits were nostalgic.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

25

“Oh, see, it’s Jackie! The former First Lady of the United States.” Man (in his 40s) to his daughter, referring to the display of Warhol’s Jacqueline Kennedy portraits

“Who is in this picture?” Granddaughter to grandmother.

“It’s Marilyn’s husband, Joe DiMaggio. He was a great baseball player in the 1960s…” Grandmother to granddaughter, looking at the display of Marilyn’s photographs

There is widespread agreement that artworks are the key to the museum, but the interpretation accompanying the art is also a key element in the exhibitions. Most visitors were in favor of at least some rudimentary level of information being provided. The above results confirmed the efforts of the exhibit design team in enlightening visitors about the works of art.

Whilst Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the positive relationship between total time and percentage of stops, Figure 10 shows a negative relationship between variables. Although the majority of visitors engaged with 40% of the elements in the lobby, they moved rather fast. A minority of visitors spent quite a long time enjoying reading the visitors’ comment book in the lobby, but spent relatively less time paying attention to the art displayed.

In most cases, interpretations of the lobby were, in some ways, unfortunate. Unlike John Chamberlain’s sofa on the fifth floor, which was perceived as an artwork people should use to sit down and talk about art, most visitors did not perceive the lobby as an area for art. To a certain degree, the sofa, the coffee table, the magazines, and the visitors’ comment book were immediate signs of the lobby’s status as a multi-purpose room. Visitors felt positive about the lobby’s multi-purpose nature; however, they misunderstood its function to some extent: they thought the lobby served exclusively “non-art” purposes.

In conclusion, visitors’ pace through the museum was fast. Most visitors actually walked around 40-50% of the showcases. They glanced at most but looked carefully at objects that caught their eyes before they left. However, no one looked at the objects systematically. Most

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

26

visitors were butterflies that moved fast among the galleries. They focused on general effects, not on particular pieces of work. Their experience was of the museum as a whole, not of individual works of art. They were easily distracted from an element when they found another element which was more attractive to their eyes. Encouraging visitors to engage more with works of art, to slow down and to look more actively in the galleries and exhibits are significant challenges for the AWM to overcome.

Experiences in the Warhol Museum

Whilst visitors’ length of time and pace in the museum reflected the degree they paid attention to and enjoyed the exhibitions, it is interesting to hear how they actually felt about their museum experience.

The majority of comments were favorable and complimentary:

“Loved it!” Chris, independent sales representative, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“It was an excellent experience.” Lucy, marketing researcher, aged 65-74, lives in Chicago

“I am happy about today’s visit. It was interesting.” Fanny, student, aged 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

“Enjoyed the visit very much. I, we liked the graphics and paintings as long as I, we can remember. No real dislikes.” Tom, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of Pittsburgh area

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

27

“I liked everything at the Warhol.” Julie, college student, aged 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

Of course, for visitors, the museum experience was varied. It could be an aesthetic encounter:

“I especially liked seeing the early works (paintings) among the constantly touring and exhibited Warhols, you don’t usually see these. Beautiful!” Ray, publishing sales representative, aged 25-34, lives in Newton, MA

“I am happy about today’s visit. I enjoyed seeing his (Warhol’s) works in person and I liked the explanations of his works.” Laura, student, aged 16-17, lives in East Greenwich, RI

An experience of joy and surprise:

“We like all the gallery floors because there are always new pieces from the collections.” Ben and Emma, members of Carnegie Museums, students living in the Pittsburgh area, aged 18-24

“I really am enjoying today’s visit. I always love Andy Warhol and the pop art.

This museum was a great surprise for me.” Isabella, French student on holiday in Pittsburgh, aged 18-24

“I enjoyed the visit. It was very informative, open and fun. It actually exceeds over our expectations.” Don, graphic designer, father of a 15-month-old baby, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of Pittsburgh, visiting with wife and son

A self-enrichment process:

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

28

“I learned a lot today.” Cathy, registered nurse, aged 45-54, living within 30-50 miles of the Pittsburgh area

“It was very enlightening and informative.” Amy, member of Carnegie Museums, homemaker, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“I enjoyed learning more about Andy Warhol’s life and art. Before today’s visit, I only knew his most popular things.” Tina, bookseller, aged 18-24, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

A touch of confusion:

“I enjoyed the visit, but it was very challenging to understand Warhol’s view.”

George, judge, aged 55-64, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

An enlightening and inspiring journey:

“Seeing something new through someone else’s eyes!” Nicole, retail manager, aged 35-44, local resident of Pittsburgh

A wave of nostalgia:

“The galleries are spectacular – a great tribute to American icon!” Charlotte, retail manager, aged 18-24, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

An entrance to a time machine:

“I enjoyed the history on display since Andy Warhol saved everything!” Malcolm, elected official, aged 65-74, local resident of Pittsburgh

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

29

Such a comment was interesting. The usage of the term “the history on display” showed that the display of art for this visitor was more related to history, not art history.

Comments on the range of Warhol’s works inside the museum were upbeat:

“It was a really great experience –excited to see his range.

Kate, graduate student, aged 25-34, lives in California, visiting with fiancé

“I loved seeing the broad range of Warhol’s artistic products.” Daniel, law professor, aged 55-64, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“It was also a plus to see many of the multiples that do not turn up in other museums.” Lucy, marketing researcher, aged 65-74, lives in Chicago

“Today’s visit is great. What an interesting museum! I like the variety of installations.” Corey, contractor for US Department of State, aged 55-64, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

Most comments on the art were positive; however, there was one sceptic:

“Great exhibit of recording the mundane and calling it art!” Sandra, homemaker, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

While art was usually referred by visitors when recalling their museum experience, others considered the museum environment as important as the art displayed:

“Today’s visit was very fine. The museum has a good atmosphere, not too many people.” Herbert, German student on holiday in Pittsburgh, living in Freudenberg, aged 18-24

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

30

“I like the atmosphere here.” James, field director, aged 18-24, living within 30-50 miles of the Pittsburgh area

“The physical building was a delight.” Robert, artist, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

Comments also show that accessibility, facilities, staff, and even the café in the museum were important factors that influenced the museum experience:

“We like the friendly staff, accessibility to the art and self-guided pace.” Don, graphic designer, father of a 15-month-old baby, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh, visiting with wife and son

“Worth the effort. Smart and hip. Check out the café.” Robert, artist, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

One visitor acknowledged the opportunity of taking part in the hands-on workshop:

“This museum was wonderful. I was especially happy about the hands on workshop.” Frank, curator, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

Sometimes those same factors could undermine an otherwise enjoyable experience:

“I liked the venue and the art. Wished there had been more about Warhol as a young commercial artist. Staff were less than friendly. (Warhol might have approved, though). John Waters stuff was okay but kind of shallow.” Mark, arts marketing consultant, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

31

“Overall was a great experience, but didn’t like the food at the café.” Allan, member of Carnegie Museums, public economic developer, 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

Although nearly all visitors’ comments were favorable; two visitors expressed their frustrations:

“We liked the bathroom sinks; the art however was not quite our style.” Deborah, teacher, aged 25-34, local resident of Pittsburgh

“To be honest, I am not happy about today’s visit. I thought it was a waste of time.

There should be more fun stuff, like the balloon or something...” Sam, Dutch student on holiday in Pittsburgh, aged 18-24

These kinds of responses reflected a dilemma for all contemporary art museums. While the esotericism of art is respectable, does it draw crowds into the museum? While the museum itself is an informal learning venue, is it possible to make a visit both an educational and an entertaining experience? These are challenges for the museum.

Visitors and the Art

Obviously, visitors’ needs and desires are hard to predict. It is almost impossible to cater sufficiently for them all. The above visitors’ comments on the museum experience demonstrate the diversity of the tastes of visitors. Indeed, there are thousands of factors that could vary in any one museum experience; however, one can never deny that art is predominant during a museum visit. In view of this, it is interesting to know which of the artworks visitors like the most or least.

The Silver Clouds was the predictable favorable. The majority of visitors mentioned the Silver Clouds:

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

32

“I like the Silver Clouds room the best!” Fanny, student, aged 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

“Silver Clouds were fun.” Hilary, educator, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“Silver Clouds is brilliant.” James, field director, aged 18-24, living within 30-50 miles of the Pittsburgh area

“My son liked the Silver Clouds.” Don, graphic designer, father of a 15-month-old baby, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area, visiting with wife and son

Although the Silver Clouds was extremely popular, the majority of visitors showed a similar degree of indifference to the information alongside the work. Of the few that mentioned the exhibition, most of them could only remember the color and style of the work:

“I loved the silver balloon room. Everything in the museum was very interesting.”

Thomas, student, aged 25-34, lives in Indianapolis, IN

“I liked the one with the balloons (pillows).” Sam, Dutch student on holiday in Pittsburgh, aged 18-24

“The second floor and the silver pillows are the best.” Nicole, retail manager, aged 35-44, local resident of Pittsburgh

“The pillow room was our favorite.” Alice, elementary school teacher, aged 45-54, local resident of Pittsburgh

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

33

Others remembered what the theme of the work referred to:

“Liked the cloud room.” Sarah, auctioneer, mother of a 14-year-old son, aged 45-54, lives in Yardley, PA

Even when the actual name of the work was forgotten, comments show that visitors enjoyed the interaction with something visibly different. Such comments are playful:

“The exhibition I liked the best is the pillow room (clouds?) What a fun!” Daniel, law professor, aged 55-64, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“The room with the clouds was a lot of fun.” Lucy, marketing researcher, aged 65-74, lives in Chicago

“I love the balloon room, because it is interactive and fun.” Monica, Executive director of a non-profit organization, aged 25-34, local resident of Pittsburgh

For visitors, the interactive style of the work was inviting. Compared with the rest of works in the museum, the touchable work established a welcoming and friendly atmosphere, which was easily being appreciated by visitors:

“I enjoyed the fake clouds because this art connected with me more.” Tina, bookseller, aged 18-24, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“The exhibition I like the best is the Silver Clouds. It made me feel like standing in a three dimensional screen saver. ” Tom, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

On balance, comments showed that the Silver Clouds made the fifth floor the most popular floor in the museum. Second only to the Silver Clouds, visitors frequently mentioned the John

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

34

Waters’ exhibit. However, unlike the Silver Clouds, which were overwhelmingly favored by visitors, responses showed that the Waters’ exhibit was one that visitors seemed to either love or hate.

The range of comments on the Waters’ exhibit was wide. Some visitors were hooked by the odd and wild aspects of the Waters’ exhibit: “7th floor is the best. I liked the Waters’ exhibit!” Corey, contractor for US Department of State, aged 55-64, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“John Waters exhibit is great!” Lillian, software, developer, aged 25-34, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“John Waters’ exhibit is the best. It is brave and innovative.” Malcolm, elected official, aged 65-74, local resident of Pittsburgh

“John Waters and Warhol’s Silver Clouds are the best. It’s interesting to see another side of John’s art. The Silver Clouds is just plain fun!” Emily, retail merchandiser, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

Some visitors showed their appreciation of Waters’ efforts in curating Andy’s Porn:

“I liked the current John Waters exhibitions because it was new and his curatorial of Andy’s porn was more then you usually get to see from the archives.” Julie, college student, aged 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

Some visitors were surprised to find that the AWM displayed the Waters’ exhibits:

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

35

“It was actually surprised to see the special exhibit of Waters.” Lucy, marketing researcher, aged 65-74, lives in Chicago

“The John Waters was an extra treat.” Emily, retail merchandiser, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

Some visitors considered Andy’s Porn a further demonstration of Warhol:

“I thought the porno upstairs illustrates how Warhol pushed the limits, and the boxes show his imagination.” George, judge, aged 55-64, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

However, some visitors questioned why John Waters’ works were displayed in the AWM:

“It was interesting to have a closer look at American Pop Art, but I felt confused why John Waters has to be in the same museum with Andy Warhol.” Sean, CEO, aged 55-64, lives in Paris

Some visitors were confused about the esoteric Waters:

“The exhibition I like the least is John Water’s displays. Somehow, I just don’t get it. I don’t know why?” Tom, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

And some visitors just felt dislike or doubt of the Waters’ exhibits.

“The Silver Clouds, the original beginning little girl and girls and boys paintings, the 6th floor, cow wallpaper…were all my favorites. The worst in the museum is the 7th floor, John Waters’ exhibit.” Laura, student, aged 16-17, lives in East Greenwich, RI

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

36

“Don’t like John Waters’ exhibit.” Clair, sales, aged 45-54, lives in Boston, MA

“Didn’t care for John Waters’ exhibit but liked the rest of the museum.” Clair, sales, aged 45-54, lives in Boston, MA

The following comment confirmed that it’s easier for visitors to remember the thematic sections when they exited the museum. They remembered the color or the style of an object, but could hardly remember the name of the object or the artist who created the object:

“I don’t like others (Waters’) works.” Cathy, registered nurse, aged 45-54, living within 30-50 miles of the Pittsburgh area

In hindsight, it is not extraordinary that visitors would show such extreme reactions when talking about the John Waters’ exhibit. To a certain degree, the Water's paintings and films were abrasive to some visitors:

“The top floor (John Waters) was a bit disturbing to see and to ‘look’ into someone’s’ mind” Tina, bookseller, aged 18-24, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“I think John Waters achieved his goal of disgusting the viewer especially 2 assholes and a dirty foot.” Deborah, teacher, aged 25-34, local resident of Pittsburgh

“The Silver Clouds, the original beginning little girl and girls and boys paintings, the 6th floor, cow wallpaper…were all my favorites. The worst in the museum is the 7th floor, John Waters’ exhibit.” Laura, student, aged 16-17, lives in East Greenwich, RI

This comment shows a sense of humor:

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

37

“I liked Taylor Meade’s ass on the 7th floor.” Ivy, policy analyst, aged 35-44, living within 30-50 miles of the Pittsburgh area

While the Waters’ exhibit was a center of controversy, the iconic portraits displayed received a lot of favorable comments. Not surprisingly, Warhol’s well-known set of iconic portraits struck a chord with visitors to whom the faces were familiar:

“The first floor was a great introduction to get the tone.” Robert, artist, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“I liked the exhibition on the ground floor because those paintings are familiar.”

Kelly, aged 35-44, local resident of Pittsburgh

“I liked the pop art images in the lobby and the fifth floor.”

Don, graphic designer, father of a 15-mont-old baby, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh, visiting with wife and

“Floors 5 and 6 were the best (most popular works of Andy Warhol).” A German, student, living in Freudenberg, aged 18-24

Warhol’s landmark series of commercial printings was popular among visitors:

“Really was most interested in early works, such as Campbell’s Soup Cans and Elvis.... Would like to know and see more.” Robert, artist, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area “We liked the advertisement pictures.” Eric and Angel, students, both in their 20s and living in Johnsonville, NY

But there were equal expressions of skepticism:

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

38

“I liked the graphic paintings that were incredible works independent of the Warhol ‘style.’ The repetitive stuff becomes overload very quickly.” Mark, Arts marketing consultant, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

Comments on the Interview display were also frequent: “6th, 5th and 4th floors are the best. I liked the interview display.” Suzy, homemaker, aged 55-64, local resident of Pittsburgh “I like the 3rd or 4th floor- the magazine covers the best!” Amy, member of Carnegie Museums, homemaker, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

Visitors felt that they had a personal association with the works when they found they were familiar with the art. Sometimes, it was disappointing if a familiar object was missing. Several visitors inquired about where the Marilyn Monroe paintings were because they came all the way to the Warhol to see Marilyn:

“We were kind of disappointed about the missing of Marilyn Moore, because we came particularly to see Marilyn. Where was Marilyn?” Alice, elementary school teacher, aged 45-54, local residence of Pittsburgh

The Cow Wallpaper was singled out by various visitors:

“I liked all the exhibitions but especially the cow wall papers design, the Silver Clouds and all the interview magazines, because I’ve never seen them before.”

Isabella, a French student, aged 18-24

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

39

“We liked Pillow rooms, cow wall papers, and soup cans equally.” Alice, elementary school teacher, aged 45-54, local residence of Pittsburgh

“I like his pop silk screens-but was surprised by a lot of what I have seen. The balloons, cow wallpaper and photos were cool.” Kate, graduate student, aged 25-34, lives in California, visiting with fiancé

Visitors were impressed by the bright color of the Cow Wallpaper. For visitors, the Cow Wallpaper display was not only a display of Warhol’s work, but also an innovative wall coloring of art exhibitions. To a certain degree, it matched the theme of the exhibitions and created a special atmosphere in the museum.

Some savvy visitors were aware of the way artist created the artwork: “I liked the oxidation paintings on the 6th floor.” Peter, a German student, aged 2534

“Last super-especially the collages were great.” Sarah, auctioneer, mother of a 14year-old son, aged 45-54, lives in Yardley, PA

“My wife liked the prints/etchings, especially of cupid.” Don, graphic designer, father of a 15 months baby, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh, visiting with wife and son

Of course, Warhol’s role as filmmaker was not neglected:

“Movie stuff was interesting.” Monica, executive director of a non-profit organization, aged 25-34, local resident of Pittsburgh

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

40

“I liked the silver cloud room and the video installations.” Carolyn, student, aged 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

On balance, the majority of comments were complimentary, balanced with few showing disfavor. Visitors were confident with their opinions. They were straightforward. If they liked something, they said so. Similarly, if they disliked something, they said so. These responses, though presented by only a sample of visitors, reminded us the elusiveness of visitors’ desires.

Perceptions of the Warhol Museum

On reflection, when visitors left the museum, they were able to identify what was important during a visit. Moreover, they expressed their expectations regarding future visits. In response to “What would you tell your friends about The Warhol?” the majority were positive:

“To come, fun and definitely different.” Sarah, auctioneer, mother of a 14-year-old son, aged 45-54, lives in Yardley, PA

“It is fun if you haven’t been here. They have fun events on Fridays.” Monica, executive director of a non-profit organization, aged 25-34, local resident of Pittsburgh

“Very interesting. Must see for yourself.” Kelly, bartender, aged 18-24, lives in Indiana, PA

“I always tell people to visit this museum. This is an interesting and insightful museum.” Carolyn, student, aged 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

“It’s well organized and has good exhibits.” Ben and Emma, members of Carnegie Museums, student living in the Pittsburgh area, aged 18-24

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

41

“Good way to spend an afternoon.” Jimmy, software designer, aged 25-34, living within 30-50 miles of the Pittsburgh area

However, there were two isolated negative responses:

“I’d say do pop in but don’t expect to be enriched or impressed.” Mark, Arts marketing consultant, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“Don’t go there!” Sam, Dutch student on holiday in Pittsburgh, aged 18-24

While for many visitors, the AWM was perceived as a recreational venue, some visitors perceived the AWM as a historical site of Pittsburgh;

“The Warhol is part of Pittsburgh. A must see.” Amy, member of Carnegie Museums, homemaker, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“That it’s a great feature of Pittsburgh and you should go.” Julie, aged 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

“Must see just for the building.” Malcolm, elected official, aged 65-74, local resident of Pittsburgh

The AWM is an important venue in memorizing something important in the art history:

“The Warhol is a very important place of art and history. Come visit it!” Kate, graduate student, aged 25-34, lives in California, visiting with fiancé

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

42

“The Warhol is an amazing cultural history perspective.” George, judge, aged 5564, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

A space for art lovers:

“If you are interested in art, you can’t miss what Andy Warhol has brought to modern art.” Sean, CEO, aged 55-64, lives in Paris

“If you are interested in contemporary art, you should visit the Warhol.” Kelly, aged 35-44, local resident of Pittsburgh

A museum which was different from the norm:

“This is a different museum. It stretches your thinking.” Jenny, bus administrator, aged 55-64, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“Would absolutely recommend it. Would tell anyone who is hesitant that it’s very approachable and unpretentious for a modern art museum.” Don, graphic designer, father of a 15-month-old baby, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh, visiting with wife and son

“It’s unlike most museums and you must like Andy Warhol’s works if you go.”

Frank, curator, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

A site for Pop Art lovers and Warhol fans:

“Unless you really like Warhol, do Not come here.” Deborah, teacher, aged 25-34, local resident of Pittsburgh

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

43

“I would tell people that if they enjoy Andy’s work, the museum is a must visit.”

Emily, retail merchandiser, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“It’s a large museum of one pop artist.” Allan, member of Carnegie Museums, public economic developer, 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

“A fabulous place to visit for a person interested in this type of Art.” Charlotte, retail manager, aged 18-24, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

A comprehensive single artist museum:

“It’s a large museum of one artist.” Allan, member of Carnegie Museums, public economic developer, 18-24, local resident of Pittsburgh

A place for adults:

“Prepare for a different art experience. A reminder – several of the exhibitions are NOT appropriate for children.” Alice, elementary school teacher, aged 45-54, local resident of Pittsburgh (see also Visitors’ Profiles section).

A venue exclusively for youngsters:

“Youngsters should definitely come and see for themselves.” Laura, student, aged 16-17, lives in East Greenwich, RI

A venue celebrating subcultures:

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

44

“He is a delightfully sick puppy with colorful daydreams populated by the stars of yesteryear –we love it!” Tom, aged 45-54, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

Or a great presentation showing the artist’s autobiography:

“Very great museum, fabulous overview of Andy Warhol’s life. Interesting collection. The best Carnegie Museum!” Herbert, a German student, living in Freudenberg, aged 18-24

The following comments revealed that some visitors perceived the museum in terms of its education value. They were aware of the museum’s function as an informal learning venue:

“It will help you to appreciate and understand Warhol’s work much more than a book or video.” Grace, teacher, aged 25-34, living within 30-50 miles within the Pittsburgh area

This comment was evocative:

“You get a greater feel for true artist.” Tina, bookseller, aged 18-24, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

On balance, the majority of visitors perceived the museum as a cultural and educational venue, which was good for people who were interested in contemporary art. Although a few visitors expressed dissatisfaction with some of the museum’s services, they were still able to point out aspects that they felt delighted about.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

45

Expectations of the Warhol Museum

In response to the question “How important is it that the Warhol offers/provides the following?” the answer visitors gave the most was inclusion of more of Warhol’s works. The second most cited answers were inclusion of more contemporary artists’ works. Other responses, such as frequently changing displays and exhibitions, and interactive displays and exhibitions, were also cited frequently, as Table 22 below shows.

Table 22.

Visitors’ Expectations of the AWM Visitors' Expectations of the AWM Inclusion of more of Warhol's works Inclusion of more contemporary artists' works Frequently changing displays and exhibitions Interactive displays and exhibitions Displays and exhibitions covering all kinds os subjects Educational opportunities for all age of groups Displays and exhibitions appeal to a wide range of ethnic groups and communities Others Displays and activities accesible for children and families

Frequency 23 15 11 10 7 6 2 5 1

Note. Data collected from the questionnaire survey.

These results showed that visitors expected to see more works by Warhol in a museum named the Andy Warhol museum. For visitors, the Warhol itself was a brand, meaning that for them it is a museum which shows the most comprehensive collection of Warhol’s artworks. A couple of visitors expressed their expectations of seeing more of Warhol’s Time Capsules and archives, as they felt those were important records of the artist’s life:

“The physical building was a delight. Really was most interested in early works.

Would like to know and see more. Would of liked to see more of his collections of time capsules.” Robert, artist, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

46

“The special exhibit was unexpected. I was disappointed that the study room/archives was closed. But all together was a great visit.” Frank, curator, aged 35-44, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

However, visitors were also aware that the AWM was not only a museum displaying Warhol’s works, but also a museum displaying other contemporary artists’ works. Visitors enjoyed the diverse displays in the museum. For them, art still took precedence over other elements of the experience. Returning visitors expected to have a refreshing experience every time. Thus, they hoped to see the museum change displays and exhibitions frequently. In regard to interactive displays and exhibitions, these did not necessary mean multimedia installations. Many visitors expressed their hopes of seeing more exhibitions like the Silver Clouds. For them, interactive displays and exhibitions were something they could touch and play with. For others, an experience of learning and enrichment was most important.

In terms of a learning experience, while some visitors seemed to enjoy the self-guided process, a couple of visitors expressed dissatisfaction with not being fully informed.

“Felt not being fully educated in Andy Warhol’s techniques/inspiration. We would have liked more printed information and explanations near the various galleries. Is an audio tour available?” Alice, elementary school teacher, aged 45-54, local resident of Pittsburgh

“I was very happy with the detail and wide selection of Warhol’s work. However, a little bit more biographical information of Warhola’s early life and connection to Pittsburgh would be nice.” Mike, manager, aged 18-24, living more than 50 miles of the Pittsburgh area

“I would suggest the museum to identify the names of the celebrities shown in the prints on the first floor… and add more signage in general to identify Warhol’s early works.” Lucy, marketing researcher, aged 65-74, lives in Chicago

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

47

“I enjoyed the visit, but would like to read more about Warhol.” Jenny, bus administrator, aged 55-64, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

“I expected to get more information of the year of works. Perhaps providing visitors a map or docent tour is a good idea.” Kate, graduate student, aged 25-34, lives in California, visiting with fiancé

“The visit was okay, but I felt the exhibition didn’t tell me a story.” Kevin, manager, aged 25-34, living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area

For many viewers, understanding was perceived the most important factor when encountering the art. Feeling confused when encountering an artwork with confusion might make them felt isolated and helpless. Sometimes, this could turn into a feeling of being cheated or fooled. For example, a woman in her 50’s spent a couple of minutes looking at a painting hanger because she thought it was an artwork being displayed alongside the label. She became upset when she realized that the work of art had actually been removed by the museum staff. Visitors hoped that by receiving background information on what they were viewing, they would be able to create a basic connection with the works of art. Since many visitors came to the museum for an intellectual experience, this was an understandable desire. The information presently provided alongside the artworks was considered inadequately by many visitors.

However, how much information should be provided alongside artworks? Will visitors feel bombarded if a great deal of information is provided? These are key issues for the museum to consider.

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

The report has provided an insightful description of visitors’ profiles and behaviors in the AWM. It also has addressed several issues and challenges for the AWM. Overall, visitors to

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

48

the AWM were likely to be 54% female and 46% male, mostly aged between 20-50, with a high education level and higher-than-average annual household income. Concerning visitors’ past 12 months visitation in the AWM and visitors’ origins, 77% of visitors were first-time visitors and 62% lived outside of the Pittsburgh area. The revisiting rate and member visiting rate were both lower than 50%.

The average lengths of visits in the whole museum, the fifth floor, Gallery G02, and the lobby were 83.0, 9.0, 3.9, and 2.8 minutes, respectively. Visitors made eleven, five, and six stops on average on the fifth floor, Gallery G02, and the lobby, respectively. All in all, their pace in the museum was fast.

For the majority of visitors, “the name of the museum” was cited most frequently in response to “What prompted your visit today?” The second most frequently cited answer was to have an “intellectual/educational experience.”

The most popular exhibit in the museum was Silver Clouds. Regarding their expectations of the museum, a large majority of visitors expressed the hope of seeing more of Warhol’s work, and the need to receive more information about the artworks.

Generally, visitors are hard to please. Their taste shift rapidly. They differ in their desires and needs. The AWM was extremely brave to listen to what visitors said. As an author and an outsider, it is not my position to offer any final thoughts or suggestions here. If there is anything I would say, it is that the AWM should be confident regarding the content of current exhibitions, but should move in the direction of attracting greater diversity of visitors as well as continuing to listen open-mindedly to visitors.

An Audience Research Project in the AWM Summer 2005 Nancy C. Lu H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University

49

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barry, A. (1998). On interactivity: Consumers, citizens and culture. In S. Macdonald (Ed.), The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture (pp. 98-117). New York: Routledge.

Duncan, C. (1995). Civilizing Rituals: inside public museums. New York: Routledge.

Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the Museum. New York: Routledge.

Hein, H. S. (2000). The Museum in Transition- A Philosophical Perspective. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992). Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge.The Heritage: CarePreservation-Management. New York: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Education, communication and interpretation: towards a critical pedagogy in museums. In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), The Educational Role of the Museum (pp. 3-27). New York: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museum education past, present and future. In R. a. Z. Miles, L. (Ed.), Toward the Museum of the Future: New European Perspectives (pp. 133-146).

New York: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museums and their Visitors. New York: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2000). Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. New York: Routledge.

Knell, S. J. (2003). The shape of things to come: museums in the technological landscape.

Museum and Society, 1(3), 132-146.

Leahy, H. R. (2003). Researching Learning at Manchester Art Gallery. Manchester: Center for Museology, University of Manchester.

O'Neil, M.-C. a. D.-T., C. (1997). Looking in everyday life/gazing in museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 16, 131-142.

Serrell, B. (1998). Paying Attention: Visitors and Museum Exhibitions. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1: TIME TABLE

Timetable T=Visitor observation study

Q=Questionnaire survey

7/8 7/9

3:00-5:00(T) 2:00-4:00(T)

7/13

11:00-1:00(Q) 2:30-4:30(T) 11:00-1:00(Q) 2:00-4:00(T) 10:00-5:00(Q)

7/17 7/19 7/20 7/21 7/26 7/28 7/29 7/30

11:00-1:00(T) 2:00-4:00(Q) 1:00-3:00(Q) 3:30-5:00(T) 11:00-1:00 (T) 2:30-4:30 (Q) 2:00-4:00(Q) 12:00-2:00(T) 3:00-5:00(Q) 10:00-12:00(Q) 1:00-3:00(T)

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 2: THE QUESTIONNAIRE

the warhol: Tell Us What You Think 1. How many museums or galleries have you visited in the past one year?

1 0 2 1~2 3 3~5 4 6~8 5 More than 9 2. Have you previously visited the Andy Warhol Museum? If so, when was the last time?

1 This is my first time 2 This month 3 2-6 months ago 4 7-12 months ago 5 More than a year ago 3. What prompted you to visit The Warhol today (check all that apply)?

1 The name of the Museum 2 A particular exhibition (which one(s)? )__________________________________________________ 3 An advertisement (where?) ____________________________________________________________ 4 A recommendation from a local friend/ family 5 Wanted to show to an out-of town guest 6 Wanted to do something different 7 Wanted an educational/intellectual experience 8 Website 9 Special event (which one?) ___________________________________________________________ 10 Other (specify) _____________________________________________________________________ 4. Are you happy about today’s visit? What did you like or dislike about today’s visit? __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Which of the exhibitions/floors do you like the best or least? Why? __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

6. What would you tell your friends about The Warhol? __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX

7. Did you plan or do you plan to visit The Warhol again in the next 12 months?

1 Very likely?

2 Somewhat likely 3 Not too likely 4 Not all likely 8. How important is it that The Warhol offers/provides the following? (check the most important one) 1 Inclusion of more of Warhol’s works 2 Inclusion of more contemporary artists’ works 3 Interactive displays and exhibitions 4 Displays and exhibitions covering all kind of subjects 5 Frequently changing displays and exhibitions 6 Educational opportunities for all age of groups 7 Displays and exhibitions appeal to a wide range of ethnic groups and communities 8 Displays and activities accessible for children and families 9 Others _____________________________________________________________________ 9. Are you visiting…

1 Alone 2 With Friends 3 With Families 10. How many people are in your group today?

1 One 2 Two 3 Three 4 Four 5 Five or more 11. Is anyone in your group under 18?

1 Yes (How many? ______________________________________) 2 No 12. Is anyone in your group from …(check all apply) 1 The Pittsburgh area 2 Out of town 13. Which of the following best describes you?

1 Local resident (living within the Pittsburgh area) 2 A day visitor (Living within 30-50 miles of the Pittsburgh area) 3 Living more than 50 miles outside of the Pittsburgh area 4 Student living in the area 14. Which age group do you belong?

1 Under 13 2 13-15 3 16-17 4 18-24 5 25-34 6 35-44 7 45-54 8 55-64

APPENDIX

9

65-74 or older

10 75

15. Are you…

1 Female 2 Male 16. Are you a member of Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh?

1 Yes 2 No 17. What is the highest level of education that you have received?

1 Less than high school graduate 2 High school graduate 3 College graduate (undergraduate) 4 Post-graduate work or degree 18. What is your current employment status?

1 Employed full-time/self-employed full-time 2 Employed part-time/self-employed part-time 3 Homemaker 4 Retired 5 Unemployed 6 Student 19. If employed, what is your occupation? ______________________________________________ 20. Which of the following contains your total annual household income?

1 Under $15,000 2 $15,000 to $24,999 3 $25,000 to $34,999 4 $35,000 to $49,999 5 $50,000 to $74,999 6 $75,000 or more 7 Refused 21. What is your ethnic background?

1 African-American 2 Asian 3 Caucasian 4 Hispanic 5 Native American 6 Other _____________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 3: THE FIFTH FLOOR DATASHEET

The Andy Warhol Museum- Fifth Floor X=stop To=touch Ta=talk S=Sat down P=point R=read ROL=out loud

Gender M F Age: <20 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s >60s Group size: 1 2 3 4 5 5+

Group Type: A only

Total Time__________________

Date_________________

Sheet# _____________________

Time of Day______________

Initials ______________________

# Stops___________________ Day of Week_____________________

A+K

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 4: THE FIRST FLOOR DATA SHEET

The Andy Warhol Museum- Fifth Floor X=stop To=touch Ta=talk S=Sat down P=point R=read ROL=out loud

Gender M F Age: <20 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s >60s Group size: 1 2 3 4 5 5+

Group Type: A only

Total Time__________________

Date_________________

Sheet# _____________________

Time of Day______________

Initials ______________________

# Stops___________________ Day of Week_____________________

A+K