Complexity_in_Museum_Exhibition_Design

Complexity in Museum Exhibition Design
Napapong Matt Naparat, Carleton University, Ottawa, nnaparat@connect.carleton.ca
Abstract
Complexity in Museum Exhibition Design is an exploration of the complex dynamic between
design, culture, and the system of representation – exhibition. This literature review, as part of a
master’s thesis research in progress, stems from recognizing the fact that museum exhibition
techniques communicate visually and through other senses, the increasingly interdisciplinary
nature of an exhibition’s development process, and the current trend of audience interactivity
through technology and other media in museum exhibitions to engage with the viewer and promote
learning.
This paper examines how design, as a means to construct as well as to communicate in museum
exhibitions, influences the representation of culture, ultimately affecting the audience interpretation.
With an aim to raise awareness among museum practitioners, particularly designers of their design
choices in creating an exhibition and their implication, this paper thus intends to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the balance between design construction and exhibitionary
representation. It addresses both the complexity of issues and phenomena in design as well as the
complex approaches developed in their response.
To analyze the complexities of museum exhibition design through both theories and current
practice, six areas under investigation include: 1) Design in the system of representation and its
limitations, 2) The role of design in current museum practice, 3) The trend of technology-integrated
exhibitions, 4) The interdisciplinary aspects of exhibition design, 5) Examples of existing museum
exhibitions and their techniques of representing, 6) The implications for future museum exhibition
design.
Keywords
exhibition design; museum practice; interdisciplinarity; cultural representation; media and
technology.
Modern museums and exhibitions in many ways are a product of the Enlightenment – mediums to
represent ‘a community of learning and knowledge, a concordance of taste, scholarship and
industry, among the countries of Europe’ (Déotte, 2004, p. 52). With this in mind, it is
understandable that museums have come to assume their stereotypical yet vital roles as
pedagogical institutions. A recent American Association of Museums survey indicates 87% of
respondents deem museums trustworthy while 67% trust books and only 50% trust television news
(Marstine, 2006). The influence and authority of museums are prevalent as ‘the public generally
accepted the idea that if it was in the museum, it was not only real but represented a standard of
excellence’ (Cameron, 2004, p. 66). However, increasing competing sources of information and
recreation do affect museums’ foothold and popularity in today’s culture.
To reaffirm their function as social/cultural institutions and remain financially viable, there emerged
a trend in museum exhibitions resorting to entertaining and experiential values (Weil, 2002;
McLean, 2004). The museums’ choice of using design components/techniques to supplement the
traditional goal of education is self-evident through today’s ubiquity of new media and technologies
in museum exhibitions. It is also a response to ‘the pressures of the market and wider demands for
hi-tech and interactive experiences’ (Henning, 2007, p. 29).
Museums with their didactic pursuit have over time honed a unique ability to teach by showing
(Hein, 2000). The museums’ system of representation had undergone a series of transformations
from the Renaissance curiosity cabinets, to the Industrial Revolution showcasing techniques
(Greenhalgh, 1988), and including the recent urge to instil capitalist values of innovation and
consumption via hierarchical arrangement of objects (Marstine, 2006). The advance of technology,
in some ways, changes the role and priority of museums and exhibitions alike. For instance, the

prevalence of edutainment and infotainment in museum exhibitions (Preziosi, 2006), with design
as ‘interface’ or the mediation of interaction, can be considered as an extra layer of complexity to
the already complex system of representation in museal world. The designed features, such as
push buttons, enable the audiences with a participatory and affective experience (Henning, 2007).
Although the use of design components in the form of physical/computer interactives and
multimedia applications (sound, video, and projection) helps achieve educational and entertaining
purposes, it also provides a predetermined discourse for the subject matter. Each design
component/technique – appropriated by the exhibition creators (curatorial staff and designers) to
represent – is not ‘a neutral medium through which, transparently, a message passes unaltered
from sender to receiver. It is itself a participant in the creation of meaning’ (Brett, 1996, p. 61).
These various technologies of representation thus have a formative power over the presented
content (Brett, 1996). They can influence the accuracy of information and/or the conveyance of
interpretation, and therefore impact the audiences’ interpretation. Consequently, the
communication with the aid of design can become overly contrived.
This paper addresses both the complexity of issues and phenomena in design as well as the
complex approaches developed in their response. The complexity in museum exhibition design, on
one hand, is a result of the subjective nature of the contents on display and the potential for
multiple layers of interpretations. On the other hand, a different level of complexity arises from the
semiotic process of exhibition design – an interdisciplinary, intricate approach developed to
showcase/communicate the complicated subject matter in an engaging and democratic fashion.
To help set framework for this paper, it is important to clarify the terms and conditions of the three
key elements of the research site: museum exhibition, culture, and design. One way of looking at
how these three are related is to refer to Donald Preziosi’s (1998) chapter in his book The Art of
Art History, in which he states ‘Museum, in short, established exemplary models for ‘reading’
objects as traces, representations, reflections, or surrogates of individuals, groups, nations, and
races and of their ‘histories’’ (p. 509). The term museum exhibition used in this essay is considered
as communicative means to convey interpretations of culture (message) through various
techniques of presenting objects and other contents. The use of the term culture is kept to a
general sense of the aspects of people, ethnicity, countries and societies and of their histories. As
for the term design, it implies a means of construction that helps materialize the interpretation in
the form of representation, what Preziosi refers to as the ‘exemplary models for reading’. However,
the term design goes beyond its physical attributes in museum exhibitions; it also implies
communication. According to Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (2003), the etymology of the
word design shows its original meaning as ‘to outline, to indicate, or to mean’.
Furthermore, Preziosi (1998) describes an exhibition as a ‘practice of composition and narration
creating a reality through prefabricated materials and vocabularies…’ (p. 512). From this notion
two components involved in any museum exhibition can be derived, one being design and the
other being narrative. Design, as a medium to construct and/or communicate, involving
arrangement and careful organization of things to stand for something larger, implies an act of
interpretation. The narrative or storyline, as a means to deliver the subject matter, creates
coherence for the interpretation of various fragmentary contents (Ernst, 2000; Geertz, 1973).
To examine the complexity in museum exhibition design, this paper takes into consideration two
main types of exhibition: narrative and object oriented. The two types employ their artefacts
differently. Narrative-oriented exhibitions focus on telling stories using the objects to corroborate
the representation/interpretation; object-oriented exhibitions depend more on the collections of
objects to be the highlight and therefore tell their own stories (Edson & Dean, 1996).
The function of design in museum exhibitions has expanded beyond a technique of rendering truth
and cultural differences in ‘objective’ form (Mitchell, 2004). This is because ‘we inhabit a world
where virtually anything can be contained in a museum, and where virtually anything can
convincingly (or not) serve as a museum’ (Preziosi, 2006, p. 69). It entails materializing the
curatorial interpretation, enlivening the audience experience, and promoting learning in the
museum for diverse audiences. Design thus plays a direct, if not largely influential, role in
communicating the message within the exhibitionary system of cultural signification.

Design in the system of representation and its limitations
Design, as a constructive/communicative means, participates in how a representative model
(whether three dimensional, graphic, or virtual) conveys meaning. To understand the role of design
in the system of representation, this paper reviews semiotic theories and their models. This is to
regard museum exhibitions as designed products or vehicles to convey meaning – the exhibition
message.
This paper proposes two ways of looking at the relationship between museum exhibitions and their
meaning/message on culture. One is through Ferdinand de Saussure’s theory of sign and its
signification. According to de Saussure (as cited in Potts, 2003), the operation of signs consists of
two elements: what is being signified (a nonmaterial meaning) and its signifier (a physical entity).
With de Saussure’s schema, the exhibition becomes the signifier pointing to culture, the signified.
Although the role of design is not explicit, it is presumable that design is the means through which
the exhibition creators use during the complex mediation process – the articulation. Design thus
allows for and facilitates this binary operation.
Figure 1: de Saussure’s model of sign
Another way of looking at how signs operate is through a more realist approach by an American
philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce’s model introduces a third element – interpretant.
Peirce’s (as cited in Potts, 2003) theory suggests that the sign as material entity points to its object
(tangible or not) via an interpretant. Using Peirce’s model, the exhibition becomes a sign that
points to its object, meaning/message on culture, through an act of interpretation. The act of
interpretation, explicitly factored in, is critical to how signs operate considering how a work would
have no meaning without an interpretant. However, there is an issue of ‘unlimited semiosis’ where
the interpretant (the reference point) changes and so does the meaning. For example, museum
visitors can also be considered as the interpretant instead of the exhibition creators. As for this
paper, it considers the exhibition creators/designers as the main interpretants during the exhibition
development stage; they are the ones who make choices on both the interpretation of culture as
well as its representation.
Figure 2: Peirce’s model of sign
In reviewing these two theoretical models, it becomes apparent that ‘there’s no such thing as
direct, unmediated correlations between signs and meaning, and that interpretation and slippage is
therefore always present’ (B. Foss, personal communication, February 2, 2010). Design, whether
explicitly accounted for or not, contributes to this potential slippage on two levels. First, design
components/techniques as a means to construct employ non-neutral mediums to represent.
Second, the designed representation as a means to communicate is subjected to the
creators/designers’ discretion. Museum exhibitions as highly mediated vehicles thus alter
historical/cultural truths.
Timothy Mitchell’s (2004) analysis on the certainty of representation through the case of the
Exposition Universelle shows that there are limitations to the concept and techniques of
representation. According to Mitchell, there are three aspects to the system of representation
which also serve as its limitations: 1) The apparent realism of the representation – how the model

always tries to perfectly imitate the reality of what is being re-presented in the form of appearance
and details, but not necessarily scale; 2) The distinguishable difference between the model and
what it stands for – partly due to the displacement in time and space between the reality and its
imitation; 3) The double distinction within the exhibition – one between the system of
representation and the external world, which is then reiterated by catalogues, plans, or signage to
distinguish between the actual exhibition and the plan of the exhibition (p. 448).
Design hence enables at least two levels of complex representation: the construction of threedimensional
models and the graphic presentation of the design interpretation. This notion
reinforces the existence of two distinct orders of being within the system of representation – ‘the
order of things and the order of their meaning, of representation and reality’ (Mitchell, 2004, p.
449). In the realm of museum exhibitions, as a system that generally signifies culture, design plays
a direct and authoritative role in conveying what will be construed.
The role of design in current museum practice
Beyond the theoretical scheme of representation, design has a prominent role particularly in the
exhibition’s development. The role of design involves: materializing the narrative concept,
showcasing objects on display, orientating and planning visitor’s experience, and modifying the
exhibition to meet the measures of success (Alexander & Alexander, 2008).
To better understand the design role in an exhibition, this paper examines Michael Baxandall’s
(1991) framework of museum exhibit operation. The framework focusing on object-oriented
exhibitions, proposes a triad among which three independent yet related agents are involved: the
artefact makers (people who created the collected objects to represent their culture), the exhibition
creators, and the viewers. These three distinct agents each pursue their own purpose; they interact
in the space between object and label, where the viewer actively processes and mediates between
a visual object on display and textual information in a label format.
It is within this intellectual space that the design affects all three agents. For the artefact makers,
the overall design of an exhibition highlights and/or downplays certain aspects of their culture; the
decision/execution of the exhibition creators cannot equally represent all aspects of the artefact
makers’ culture. For the exhibition creators, the design, in the form of components and techniques,
is not a neutral medium through which a meaning/message about the artefact makers’ culture can
be transmitted unaltered. As for the viewers, the design can guide their interpretation of the objects
on display by either enhancing or limiting the message about the artefact makers’ culture through
the representation. Out of the three agents, only two can be managed, the artefact makers and the
exhibition creators; the viewers, particularly their interpretation of the presented culture and
response to the exhibition remain unpredictable.
Figure 3: Baxandall’s model of exhibition
The concept of ‘entrance narrative’ refers to the audiences’ preconceived notion – the variable
disposition of the viewers’ knowledge and beliefs. Despite the influence of design elements and
information provided, the viewers will act by their own lights to their own ends within this
intellectual space (Baxandall, 1991). Entrance narrative is considered as the most powerful
determinant of a visitor’s response (Weil, 2002). It thus proves to be a challenge for many museum
exhibition creators since there is no guarantee that the viewers will grasp the intended
meaning/message.

Another critical aspect in museum exhibitions, in which design plays a major part, is the visitor’s
learning in the museum. According to Falk and Dierking (2004), design is one of the eight key
factors fundamental to museum learning experiences as it controls the exhibition’s physical
context; ‘Whether the medium is exhibitions, programs, or web sites, learning is influenced by
design… Appropriately designed exhibitions are compelling learning tools, arguably one of the best
educational mediums ever devised’ (p. 142).
Despite the exhibition creators’ good intention to induce, facilitate, and promote learning, there is
an issue of authenticity with the use of design. The design components/techniques could
compromise the accuracy of an exhibition’s contents. The twofold uncertainty of museal
representation via exhibition design involves 1) the presented culture being a construct based on
exhibition creators’ interpretation, 2) the exhibition creators’ construct being inevitably subjected to
and fabricated by design techniques – what the viewers ultimately see or interact with. The
question remains ‘Even if the equipment, processes, and costumes are thoroughly researched, is
the demonstrated craft over-romanticized?’ (Alexander & Alexander, 2008, p. 263).
Notwithstanding the authenticity issue, design is still a useful means to mitigate. Baxandall (1991)
posits two design-related aspects to consider for an exhibition’s design development: context and
freedom and information. First, the exhibition’s context of viewing needs to indicate cultural
differences, signalling the cultural relativity of the viewers’ interpretation and the subject on display.
Second, there needs to be less exhibition creators’ control of the viewers’ interpretation by allowing
the well-informed viewers to create their own interpretation.
The trend of technology-integrated exhibitions
The recent profound changes in museum exhibitions attest to many museums’ desire to attract
more visitors, underlining their need to remain relevant and financially viable. This trend involves:
[Museums] expanding their range of exhibitable and often controversial themes and
experimenting with new exhibition techniques and styles of development. Exhibitions are
increasingly filled with interactive elements, multimedia and networked technologies, catchy
and conversational labels, and objects out from under the glass. (McLean 2004, p. 194)
To extend and update their role as educational institutions, museums modify their style of delivery
beyond the traditional display of objects in a rational order; they engage visitors with ‘settings,
objects, ideas, performances, conversations, and as a whole, with experiences’ (Alexander &
Alexander 2008, p. 274).
The use of sensory stimuli entices and captivates the audiences’ attention. Multimedia
applications, such as audio-visual and touch-screen interactives not only put the narrative and the
displayed collection in context for visitors, they also enrich the visitors’ learning experience. The
sensory approach is crucial to good interpretation because museum exhibitions are by and large
nonverbal, sensory experiences; by eliciting visitors’ participation, either psychological or actual,
and combining sensory perception with rational analysis, these delivery styles better explain
contents (Alexander & Alexander, 2008).
Some traditional ‘static’ design elements entail illustration, artefact labels, display arrangement,
lighting, and diorama. Now these techniques have come to include physical interactives, graphic
panels, multimedia applications, immersive experience, and so on. Psychologically, the range of
choices of design elements helps diminish museum fatigue and boredom by adding appeal and
change of pace to the exhibition (Hein, 2000; Alexander & Alexander, 2008). More importantly,
technologies help relate objects to each other and produce meaningful visual narratives (Hooper-
Greenhill, 2006). With the ability to create a broader and more cohesive picture, the sensory
approach as one of many exhibition design strategies has become integral to communicating a
message in museum exhibitions, particularly in the narrative-oriented type.
The sensory approach, achieved through design in the form of interactive elements and networked
technologies, can be a powerful tool in imparting knowledge and information, especially with its
emotional appeals. However, it is important to remember that the sensory approach should only
supplement and not replace the conventional means of words and verbalization as audiences can
also get caught up in such multi-sensory experiences (Alexander & Alexander, 2008). The more

important and pressing question is how does the sensory approach affect the complexity in
museum exhibition design?
With the trend of technology integration in museum exhibitions comes several changes. First is ‘the
deconstruction (or destruction) of the traditional exhibition cases and designs’ due to the cyberdimensions
for museum-to-visitor communication (Alexander & Alexander, 2008, p. 246). The
prevalence of audio-visual and touch-screen computer interactives best exemplifies this change.
Second, the trend also implies a change in museums’ interpretation as museum audiences take
priority over museum collections (Hooper-Greenhill, 2004; Alexander & Alexander, 2008). Third is
the re-conceptualization of authenticity – the ‘real thing’ becoming the simulated experience with
the aid of technology, and not ‘the historically legitimated objects’ (Hein, 2000, p. 66).
According to Hein (2000), the eventual outcomes of technology-led exhibitions are: exhibit-evoked
feelings holding more weight than arrays of regimented collections in constructing reality and the
collected objects themselves losing their factual integrity. In becoming means to corroborate the
curator-constructed interpretation, the objects’ own provenance/meaning becomes secondary to
their effect on the presented subject and the intended experience of the exhibition.
There is risk associated with the current exhibition trend. Museums risk losing their authority by
turning away from their collections. Hein (2000) notes that even though it is ‘not its collected
objects but its affirmative power to reify [that] enables a museum to control and articulate the
experiences that visitors undergo’ (p. 66). If one considers Hein’s claim that the didactic authority
museums enjoy today is a direct result of their traditional epistemic homogeneity and the former
prevailing attitude on the singularity of truth, modern museums then have somewhat relinquished
such authority by becoming more democratic in their exhibition’s interpretation and message and
allowing more freedom for the audience’s interpretation. Whether or not the current trend of using
design elements and technologies to create sensory/visceral experience furthers or limits the
pluralistic view of modern museums, one important question remains: how and to what extent does
the current exhibition trend affect the museums’ authority?
The interdisciplinary aspects of exhibition design
Notwithstanding an increase in literature on museums and museology, ‘a significant progress in
understanding the remarkable properties, mechanisms, and effects of museological practice
remains elusive’ (Preziosi, 1998, p. 510). This paucity of understanding attests to the complexity of
exhibition design – a collaborative and interdisciplinary development process. Another indication of
its complexity is the fact that research and theories about museum exhibition design principles
rarely go beyond the basic physical affordances. However, there is an increasing effort to establish
better guidelines and recommendations for museum exhibition’s interpretation, planning, and
development to promote learning and communication effectiveness. Nonetheless, each exhibition’s
one-off nature makes it difficult to assess and compare between museum exhibitions.
The complex and multi-faceted nature of exhibition design also affects the number and role of
professionals involved. In adopting a more pluralistic view – focusing on the diversity of ideas,
cultures, and values, ‘museum professionals are becoming increasingly conscious of the need to
diversify the pool of curators, exhibit developers, and designers who have control of exhibition
content and style of presentation’ (McLean, 2004, p. 193-4). Beyond exhibition designers, once
viewed as tradesmen, becoming a key player in the development process, this change also
redefines the role of exhibition creators in general:
They [exhibit creators, not just designers] are essentially ‘expert generalists,’ able to
synchronize the variety of disciplines that inform the exhibit-development process – to
recognize the importance of the dynamics at play in the three-dimensional environment, and to
be sensitive to the expectations and interests of a diverse audience. They are first and
foremost communicators, dedicated to sustaining the relationships and enriching the
conversations between exhibition and visitor. (McLean, 2004, p. 205)
What is noteworthy here is the double redistribution of authority in the interpretive process of
museum exhibition: 1) within the exhibition creators’ circle where various disciplinary experts share
the authoritative role; 2) beyond the exhibition creator’s circle where there is more inclusion of
audiences and their input.

McLean (2004) points out that ‘Defining ‘entertainment’ with the mind-set of a scholar or
‘education’ with the mind-set of a theme-park operator’ is a challenge and can be a disservice to
the audiences (p. 209). It is clear that despite the need and mutual appreciation of the
interdisciplinary collaboration, there is an issue of balance of the interpretive input, particularly
among the interdisciplinary team members. Although these changes in museum practice can be
regarded as the museums’ earnest response to the complexity and sophistication of the exhibition
design as well as their target audiences, they also imply an added level of complexity in museum
exhibitions.
Examples of existing museum exhibitions and their techniques of
representing
The following section discusses two existing exhibitions to demonstrate how design is deployed in
the two main types of museum exhibition, Napoleon and the First Empire at the Montreal Museum
of Fine Arts being object-oriented and the Canadian War Museum’s (CWM) permanent exhibition
as a narrative-oriented example. These two museum exhibitions use different design components
and techniques to convey their messages.
The exhibition on Napoleon consists of two rooms: one square and a long tunnel-like rectangle that
together form an L-shape. The main colour scheme - deep royal blue walls with a tint of dark grey
– complements the collections, which include gilded frames and objects, silverware, and warm red
wood furniture. It is evident that the exhibit space and arrangement have been designed with the
intention for the artefacts to be the central element. This is further achieved with each artefact
illuminated by several spotlights, while leaving the overall ambiance minimally lit. While the
artefacts are being highlighted against the dark walls, what remain obscure and almost illegible are
the artefact labels entailing work title, brief description/explanation and its source. The highlight of
the exhibit comes in the last section, a square red room has been created as homage to Napoleon
with two benches on the side. The intent here is likely to encourage viewers to reflect on and
admire the presented subject – providing room for contemplation which was what museums were
originally conceived to accomplish (Ernst, 2000).
The exhibition on Napoleon, in many ways, typifies Baxandall‘s concept of the intellectual space
between the artefact and the label where the input from the three agents interact. The deliberate
space and therefore the interactions are largely shaped and formed by several basic design
elements: space layout and artefact arrangement, colour scheme, lighting, and graphic content.
This is quite a contrast, should one compare it to the CWM’s permanent exhibition. Narratives, as
interpretive ideas, often drive exhibitions of social history; artefacts as corroborative evidence
contribute differently to the overall meaning (Lavine, 1991; Hein, 2000). The CWM’s permanent
exhibition not only consumes more space in its entirety, but the intended message also seems
more complex as the experience and communicative means have been masterly engineered.
Without artefacts being the central focus, the exhibition communicates through more advanced
representative media, such as audio-visual elements, computer/physical interactives, bold graphic
panels, simulated battle scene via projection, and even immersive wartime trench experience. In
many ways, the design techniques employed by the CWM are more forceful in engaging the
audiences’ attention. However, the question remains if the interpretation of culture, in this case of
war history, is accurately conveyed.
The differences between the two examples demonstrate levels of complexity in designing museum
exhibitions and their experience. The design components/techniques used for the representation
have evolved from the printed plans and catalogues to digital graphics and computer interactives.
The intellectual space in today’s exhibitions is without a doubt more contrived and no longer clearcut
as just between the object and its label; it now concerns sensory and experiential aspects in
the form of advanced multimedia and networked technologies.
The implications for future museum exhibition design

Figure 4: Schema Integrating Overall Concepts of this Research Paper
The schema above illustrates the central and key role design plays in museum exhibitions. The red
line representing the conveyance of culture indicates various key elements involved in museum
exhibitions. The order, which is not hierarchical, suggests the museums’ transmission process
between the cultural subject on one end and their audiences on the other end. The design enables
communication by bridging between the narrative (a form of cultural interpretation/message) and
the exhibition (a representative model). Between each key element, issues contributing to the
complexity of museum exhibitions are identified.
This paper thus far has focused on the issues concerning the complexity in museum exhibition
development and communication: representation and its limitations, technology integration,
authenticity, authority, entrance narrative, and interdisciplinary team of exhibition creators. These
issues underlying the complexity of museum exhibitions can be classified into three levels, where
design plays a crucial part within each level: 1) The complexity of interpretation, 2) The complexity
of representation, 3) The complexity of learning in museums.
The complexity of interpretation is often mitigated by the use of narrative. Museum exhibitions
convey their interpretation/message with the aid of design components/techniques. Objects cannot
stand alone in an exhibition; in fact, their meanings come from ‘linked objects, texts, and images
that focus the direction of signification’ (Hooper-Greenhill, 2006, p. 236). Though the exhibitions
and their design elements are changing, design will continue to be the mediatory agent that
enables, facilitates, and materializes (whether physically or virtually) the complex signifying
process of museum exhibitions.
The complexity of representation in museum exhibitions is where design is often assumed to play
the most prominent role. Design, as a means of construction/communication in representing
aspects of culture, has become more than merely a tool for mimicry. Freud recognized early on
that in order to represent historical account in spatial terms, it can only be done through
juxtaposition in space (Forrester, 1994). Hence, design principles, such as order, arrangement,
eurhythmy, and symmetry (Vitruvius & Morgan, 1960), are indispensable in the system of
representation. The current sensory approach using various new and emerging design techniques
and technologies further adds to the complexity. While technology advancement may change the
way museums archive and exhibit, design will continue to be our first and primal interface and
mediator.

With such entrusted authority and as a place of ideologies (Foucault, 2004), it is absolutely critical
to examine how museums exhibit and communicate culture through design. The complexity of
learning in museums primarily concerns the audiences and their interpretation. Despite the issue of
entrance narrative, a study and inclusion of potential audiences during the design development
process will allow the final exhibition to convey more comprehensible and compelling message
(Hooper-Greenhill, 2004). Front-end, formative, and summative evaluations can to help define
target audiences and predict their responses. The key to museum exhibition success may then be
‘[the ability] to determine what meanings visitors make from their experiences, and then to shape
the experience to the extent possible the manipulation of the environment’ (Alexander &
Alexander, 2008, p. 277).
Above all, the complexity in museum exhibitions lies in the institution’s purpose. Museum
experience naturally becomes convoluted under the devised combination of architecture,
constructed narrative, displays of artefacts, deliberately designed space, and technology
integration. It is important to keep in mind that museums are human inventions conceived from our
own aspirations and ideologies (Alpers, 1991); ‘they exist for the things we put in them, and they
change as each generation chooses how to see and use those things’ (Alexander & Alexander,
2008, p. 12). Museum exhibitions can thus be more or less complex in design and through the
means of design.
Conclusion
The changes in museum exhibitions and their design suggest a shift in such cultural/social
institutions from being a temple to a forum, where discussions and interactions among visitors
strive (Alexander & Alexander, 2008; Weil, 2000). In museums becoming more democratic and
taking their audiences more into consideration, there arise the issues of narrative and voice as well
as the issues of interpretation and meaning construction (Hooper-Greenhill, 2004). This can be
considered as a new level of complexity added to the existing complex phenomena of museum
exhibitions and their responsive approach via design.
Research is the key in addressing levels of complexity in museum exhibitions and the changes
they undergo. It can help exhibition creators to select concepts, develop compelling narratives, and
design appropriate sensory experiences during in various stages of the process. More importantly,
research allows exhibition creators to better understand the expectations and learning of their
audiences (Alexander & Alexander, 2008).
One remaining challenge in designing museum exhibitions is the difficulty in testing the concept
and its outcome. With each exhibition’s scale and demands for resources, it has been difficult to
assess and modify the design during its development or to subject it to a holistic scrutiny the way
product designers do in mocking and studying the usability of their product’s features. With the
advance of technology, it is foreseeable that this can be resolved without being another added
complication in exhibition design. In fact, a detailed analysis of both theories and current practices
likely reduces certain levels of complexity in museum exhibitions. Finally, this paper asserts that
the complexity in museum exhibition design is in the way of seeing:
A visit to museums such as the Pitti Palace in Florence or the Musée de l’Homme in Paris,
which retain outdated modes of exhibition, suggests less that they were wrong and we can get
it right than that the museum – as a way of seeing – itself keeps changing and that installation
has a major effect on what one sees. A constant, however, is the issue of seeing. (Alpers,
1991, p. 31)
References
Alexander, E. P., & Alexander, M. (2008). Museums in motion: An introduction to the history and
functions of museums. American Association for State and Local History book series. Lanham:
AltaMira Press.
Alpers, S. (1991). A way of seeing. In I. Karp & S. D. Lavine (Eds.), Exhibiting cultures: The
poetics and politics of museum display (pp. 25–32). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Baxandall, M. (1991). Exhibiting intentions: Some preconditions of the visual display of culturally
purposeful objects. In I. Karp & S. D. Lavine (Eds.), Exhibiting cultures: The poetics and politics of
museum display (pp. 26–33). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Brett, D. (1996). The construction of heritage. Cork, Ireland: Cork University Press.
Cameron, D. F. (2004). The museum, a temple or the forum. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the
museum: Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift (pp. 61–73). Walnut
Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.
Déotte, J. (2004). Rome, the archetypal museum, and the Louvre, the negation of division.”
In D. Preziosi & C. Farago (Eds.), Grasping the world: The idea of museum (pp. 51–65). Hants:
Ashgate Publishing.
Edson, G., & Dean, D. (1996). The handbook for museums. The Heritage. London: Routledge.
Ernst, W. (2000). Archi(ve)textures of museology. In S. A. Crane (Ed.), Museums and memory (pp.
17–34). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2004). The contextual model of learning. In G. Anderson (Ed.),
Reinventing the museum: Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift (pp.
139–142). Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.
Forrester, J. (1994). Mille e tre: Freud and collecting. In J. Elsner & R. Cardinal (Eds.),
The cultures of collecting (pp. 224–51). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Foucault, M. (2004). Text/contexts: Of other spaces. In D. Preziosi & C. Farago (Eds.),
Grasping the world: The idea of museum (pp. 371–79). Hants: Ashgate Publishing.
Geertz, C. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of
cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–32). New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Greenhalgh, P. (1988). Origins and conceptual development. In Ephemeral vistas:
The expositions universelles, great exhibitions, and world fairs, 1851-1939 (pp. 3–26). Manchester,
UK: Manchester University Press.
Hein, H. S. (2000). The museum in transition: A philosophical perspective. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Henning, M. (2007). Legibility and affect: Museum as new media. In S. Macdonald & P. Basu
(Eds.), Exhibition experiments (pp. 25–46). MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2004). Changing values in the art museum: Rethinking communication
and learning. In B. M. Carbonell (Ed.), Museum studies: An anthology of contexts
(pp. 556–75). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2006). The power of museum pedagogy. In H. H. Genoways (Ed.), Museum
philosophy for the twenty-first century (pp. 235–46). Oxford: AltaMira Press.
Lavine, S. D. (1991). Museum practices. In I. Karp & S. D. Lavine (Eds.), Exhibiting cultures: The
poetics and politics of museum display (pp. 151–58). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Marstine, J. (2006). Introduction. In J. Marstine (Ed.), New museum theory and practice:
An introduction (pp. 1–36). Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
McLean, K. (2004). Museum exhibitions and the dynamics of dialogue. In G. Anderson (Ed.),
Reinventing the museum: Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift (pp.
193–211). Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Springfield, Mass:
Merriam-Webster.
Mitchell, T. (2004). Orientalism and the exhibitionary order. In D. Preziosi & C. Farago (Eds.),
Grasping the world: The idea of museum (pp. 442–61). Hants: Ashgate Publishing.
Potts, A. (2003). Sign. In R. S. Nelson & R. Shiff (Eds.), Critical terms for art history
(pp. 20–34). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Preziosi, D. (1998). The art of art history. In D. Preziosi (Ed.), The art of art history: A critical
anthology (pp. 507–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Preziosi, D. (2006). Philosophy and the ends of the museum. In H. H. Genoways (Ed.), Museum
philosophy for the twenty-first century (pp. 69–78). Oxford: AltaMira Press.
Vitruvius Pollio, & Morgan, M. H. (1960). Vitruvius: The ten books on architecture. New York: Dover
Publications.
Weil, S. E. (2002). Museums: Can and do they make a difference? In Making museums matter
(pp. 55–74). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Author Biography
Napapong Matt Naparat
Matt Naparat was born in Bangkok and now lives in Montréal, Canada. With an Industrial Design
background, he has pursued his career in exhibition/product/graphic design. He was involved in
various national museum exhibition projects namely, Royal Ontario Museum Renaissance Project,
New Canadian War Museum and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Heritage Centre. His
experience has given him insight into the multi-faceted nature and complexity of today’s
interdisciplinary approach to exhibition design. His interest in languages and culture led him to
teach in Osaka, Japan. Now completing his master in Design at Carleton University (Ottawa),
incorporating a fascination with cultures, he is focusing on the complex dynamic between design,
culture, and the system of re-presentation – exhibition. To him, museum exhibition design is a
powerful communication medium deserving a thorough investigation for potential applications in
other domains of knowledge.