i 1 
The Influence of Exhibition Texts on Visitor Responses to 
Richard Lindner: Paintings and Watercolors 1948-1977 
INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES 
The Influence of Exhibition Texts on Visitor Responses to 
Richard Lindner: Paintings and Watercolors 1948-1 977 
Andrew J. Pekarik and Stacey Bielick 
August 1997 
Institutional Studies Office 
Smithsonian Institution 
900 Jefferson Drive, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20560 
(202) 786-2289 
I I 
Upon request, this report can be made available in larger type, Braille, audiocassette, 
or on disk using Wordperfect. Please contact the office at the above address. 
I I 
Report 97-4 
Abstract 
This report presents the results of a study of the exhibition Richard Lindner: 
Paintings and Watercolors 1948-1977 at the Hirshhorn Museum and 
Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, in 1996. The 
purpose of the study was to determine the effect of exhibition texts on the 
experience of visitors. It is based on visitor responses to a reproduction of a 
Lindner painting, The Walk, 1961. 
A substantial percentage of visitors read most of the exhibition text (41% of 
visitors read at least 75% of the texts); a nearly equal percentage read very little 
text (34% of visitors read 25% or less); the remaining 25% of visitors read 
moderate amounts of text (between 26% and 74%). No matter how much text 
visitors read, their perceptions of The Walk were significantly affected just by 
having viewed Lindner's paintings. Those who read exhibition texts were 
much more likely to leave the exhibition with a fuller understanding of 
Lindner's painting. They were also much more likely to associate loneliness 
and estrangement with The Walk, an interpretation that was emphasized by 
the curator in the exhibition texts. 
-1- 
Acknowledgments 
The Richard Lindner: Paintings and Watercolors 2948-2977 exhibition study at the 
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (HMSG) was undertaken by the 
Institutional Studies Office (ISO) at the request of Judith Zilczer, the curator. The 
Smithsonian?s Special Exhibition Fund provided funding for the study. This 
report summarizes the results. Its purpose is to share with the museum 
community what we learned about visitors? experience with the exhibition texts. 
At HMSG, Judith Zilczer was our primary liaison throughout all aspects of the 
study and report writing. She helped us set the research agenda and her 
enthusiasm provided encouragement and support. Teresia Bush provided 
valuable insight during questionnaire development and Belinda Kan, an HMSG 
intern, assisted in the data collection. In addition, Carol Parsons provided the 
notecards used as gifts for interview participants. 
The interviews were conducted by IS0 staff and professional interviewers Tricia 
Kalland, Brian Hartman, Paula Miller and IS0 intern, Karen Chiang. Karen also 
assisted in questionnaire development and preliminary analysis of the data. 
Finally, the study could not have been conducted without the participation of the 
visitors who took the time to respond to our questions and offer comments. 
Errors in interpretation are the responsibility of the authors. 
Zahava D. Doering, Director 
Institutional Studies Office 
Table of Contents 
Abstract ...................................................................................................... i 
Acknowledgments ................................................................................. 11 
Table of Contents ................................................................................... 111 
.. 
... 
Summary .................................................................................................. 1 
Introduction and Method ....................................................................... 2 
Results: Entrance vs . Exit ....................................................................... 3 
The Influence of the Exhibition Texts ................................................... 9 
Reading Exhibition Texts ..................................................................... 10 
Other Inferences .................................................................................... 12 
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 13 
Appendices ............................................................................................. 14 
The Walk. 1961 ......................................................................................... 18 
The Influence of Exhibition Texts on Visitor Responses to 
Richard Lindner: Paintings and Watercolors 1948-1 977 
Andrew J. Pekarik and Stacey Bielick 
Summary 
Judith Zilczer, the curator of Richard Lindner: Paintings and Watercolors 1948-1 977 
asked the Institutional Studies Office to study the exhibition in order to determine 
the effect of the exhibition texts on the experience of visitors. We based our study on 
visitor responses to a reproduction of a Lindner painting, The Walk (1961). 
The Lindner audience included a substantial number of visitors who read a lot of 
text (41% of visitors read at least 75% of the texts) and an almost equally large group 
who read only a little (34% of visitors read 25% or less). 
No matter how much text visitors read, however, their perceptions of The Walk were 
significantly affected just by having viewed Lindner's paintings. In particular, the 
experience of the exhibition heightened visitors' awareness of Lindner's use of 
exposed breasts and corsets in his imagery, and raised questions about the artist's 
attitude towards women. This perceptual change, in turn, led visitors to interpret 
The Walk more as an expression of the artist's psyche and less as an independent 
symbolic image. 
Those who did read exhibition texts were much more likely to leave the exhibition 
with a fuller understanding of Lindner's painting, especially the importance of New 
York City and the stylistic development of his work. 
Those who read texts were also much more likely to associate loneliness and 
estrangement with The Walk, an interpretation that was emphasized by the curator. 
All other interpretations, appreciations, and observations regarding The Walk were 
just as likely to be made by visitors who had not seen the exhibition as they were by 
those who had seen the exhibition. 
In addition, the study suggests that direct quotes by Lindner were especially 
memorable for visitors, that ideas presented in panels might have been more 
influential than those expressed in extended labels, and that the impact of a 
particular item of information might have been directly related to the number of 
times it was mentioned in the exhibition texts. By their own reports, visitors were 
most influenced by biographical and interpretive information. 
-1- 
Introduction 
From October, 1996 until January, 1997, the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture 
Garden at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. presented a retrospective 
exhibition of paintings and watercolors by Richard Lindner (1901-1978). Lindner 
was born in Germany, fled to Paris in 1933, and immigrated to America in 1941. He 
first made a name for himself as a graphic artist, turning to painting as his vocation 
in the late 1940s. 
Lindner's paintings usually feature symbolic figures based on an enigmatic, private 
imagery. In order to make the content of these paintings more accessible to visitors, 
the curator of the exhibition, Judith Zilczer, prepared seven interpretive texts 
mounted as wall panels in the exhibition. Each panel (275 words on average) 
contained at least one quotation from Lindner on the topic of the panel.1 In addition, 
15 of the 71 works in the exhibition had extended labels (75-200 words each) that 
discussed the works in detail, including quotations from the artist, biographical 
information, and interpretation. 
The curator asked the Institutional Studies Office to study the exhibition in order to 
determine the effect of the exhibition texts on the experience of visitors. 
Method 
We based our study on visitor responses to a laminated color reproduction of a 
Eindner painting, The Walk (1961), that had been chosen for the exhibition but that 
could not be included in it (see p. 18). Each individual selected for interview was 
asked to respond to a series of open-ended questions about the painting. These 
inquiries led in a graduated way from general questions about perceptions to 
increasingly specific questions about interpretation (see Appendix 1, p. 14). 
The photo of The Walk was shown 1) to a representative sample of 103 visitors 
entering the Lindner exhibition (Entrance Group), and 2) to a different, but equally 
representative sample of 153 visitors leaving the Lindner exhibition (Exit Group). 
The entering visitors had no exposure to the Lindner exhibition or to its texts, while 
the exiting visitors had encountered both the exhibition and its texts. Since entering 
and exiting visitors did not differ in any of their background characteristics, we 
assume that differences between entering and exiting visitors in their perception or 
interpretation of The Walk reflect the combined result of the experience of the 
exhibition and the reading of exhibition texts, 
In addition, we conducted the same kind of interview with a random sample of 72 
visitors in the permanent collection galleries of the Hirshhorn before the Lindner 
lThe first of these panels was a general introduction and the remaining six followed a chronological 
sequence ("From Europe to America: 1901-48," "Symbolic Figure Paintings: The 1950s;' "Lindner and 
'Outsider Art','' "Street Spectacle: The 1960s," "Pop Icons in the 1960s;' "Return to Symbolism: The 
1970s"). 
-2- 
exhibition opened (Control Group). These interviews showed that visitors to the 
Lindner exhibition closely resembled the usual Hirshhorn audience. 
Visitors were asked to provide demographic information, along with information on 
the frequency with which they attend art museums, and to self-rate their knowledge 
of modern art. Exiting visitors were additionally asked what they discussed with 
other people in the exhibition, when they entered the exhibition, what percentage of 
the exhibition texts they had read, whether or not they were influenced by what they 
read in the exhibition, and, if they were influenced by what they read, how were 
they influenced. 
Visitors were extremely cooperative in sharing their responses to The Walk (86.5% of 
visitors participated). These responses were tape-recorded, transcribed in their 
entirety, coded independently by two analysts, and then analyzed. 
A separate publication, Supplementary Notes (Research Note 97-3) for this 
document, provides detailed tables and demographic information about Lindner 
visitors. 
Results: Entrance vs. Exit 
There were major differences between visitors entering the exhibition and visitors 
exiting the exhibition in their response to The Walk. These differences are 
summarized in Table 1. 
Table 1 
Differences in Remarks Between Entrance Group and Exit Group 
(in percent) 
Category of remark 
Breasts 
Corset 
Pail 
Urban setting 
Alienation/estrangement 
Lonely 
Symbol of women 
Lindner attitude to womer 
Date 1960s 
96 of 
Entering 
iisitors whc 
mention it 
12 
14 
12 
7 
4 
4 
23 
10 
13 
96 of 
risitors whc 
mention it 
Exiting 
27 
28 
5 
18 
15 
15 
13 
22 
29 
Related 
Exhibition text 
None 
1 label 
None 
3 panels, 1 label 
6 panels, 2 labels 
2 panels, 2 labels 
None 
1 label 
1 panel 
Chi-square Measure 
of Difference 
(1, N=257), p<=.05 
8.05 
6.97 
4.82 
5.80 
8.34 
7.85 
4.5 1 
5.85 
4 . i i  
-3- 
Breasts. The most obvious difference was in what respondents noticed when they 
looked at the picture of The Walk. Exiting visitors, for example, were more than 
twice as likely to make reference to the figure's partially exposed breasts, compared 
to entering visitors. 
Lindner's exposed-breasts imagery is evident in at least 25 of the 73 works in the 
exhibition. Since it is not discussed in the exhibition texts, we can attribute this 
difference in percentage of mentions between entering and exiting visitors entirely 
to the visual experience of the exhibition. 
There were also differences in the ways that these two groups interpreted the 
exposed breasts motif. Exiting visitors were more likely than entering visitors to 
relate the motif to Lindner's life. One out of 12 exiting visitors (8%) related the motif 
to Lindner's attitude towards women. None of the entering visitors who mentioned 
the exposed breasts of the figure in The Walk suggested that they reflected any 
attitude of the artist. 
Exiting visitors used the words "obsession," "fixation," or "fascination," and phrases 
like "disturbed sexual concepts" to explain the breast motif in terms of Lindner's 
mental state. Nothing in the label or text copy directly discussed Lindner's sexual 
interests, although some visitors made their own links between the subjects of 
Lindner's paintings and biographical information provided in the exhibition texts: 
I read that he was married to this young girl later on in life and it's something 
to do with, I'm sure, his sexuality, and, like, prostitutes, like streetwalkers, 
that kind of stuff. And, you know in almost all his paintings he's got these 
breasts that are kind of like targets and I think that's very bizarre. Here too I 
guess. (ID 24)* 
Corset. Exiting visitors also had good reason to notice Lindner's use of the corset 
motif. At least 7 of the 71 works in the exhibition portray corsets. As in the case of 
the partially exposed breasts, exiting visitors were twice as likely as entering visitors 
to refer to this item of apparel in describing the figure in The Walk 2 ("I notice she's 
wearing a corset. I saw that because I've seen a lot of his paintings depict that." ID 
37)" 
Although all the exiting visitors used the word corset to describe it, nearly half of the 
entering visitors who referred to the corset (6% of all entering visitors) used other 
words, such as "vest," "bodice," "chastity belt," "straps," "belts," "chest-wear," or 
"breastplate." 
* See Appendix 2, p. 15 for this visitor's demographic characteristics. 
2Both breasts and corset were mentioned by 12 percent of Exiting visitors and 4 percent of Entering 
visitors. 
-4- 
The panel texts and label texts mention corset a handful of times in describing the 
figures in Lindner's paintings, but the corset imagery is extensively discussed only 
once in the exhibition, in the extended label text for a 1954 watercolor titled "The 
Corset." (The complete label text can be found in Appendix 3, p. 16) 
One out of seven exiting visitors who mentioned corset when describing The Walk 
(4% of all exiting visitors) gave some indication, either direct or indirect, that they 
had read this label. The main point that they picked up was that Lindner's mother 
had run a corset business. (''I guess, the fact that his mother ran a corset factory is, 
sort of made a lot more, the paintings made more sense in light of that because he 
seems to really have a fascination with the things.'' ID 165)* 
Some exiting visitors used this label information to construct a personal 
interpretation of what the corset imagery reveals about Lindner's state of mind: 
There's no beauty in his women. They're not, they don't speak softly and, you 
know, radiate beauty. It's kind of a more, to me, a gross expression. I don't 
see inner beauty coming out of them, I see gross exterior and I notice that he, 
on his corsets, he said his mother had a corset business and I kind of got the 
idea that maybe he was dominated over by his mother. (ID 106)* 
The corset was usually interpreted as suggesting sexuality, constriction, or 
something military-like. The sexual interpretation was exclusively found among 
exiting visitors (7% of exiting visitors), probably because the extensive imagery of 
exposed breasts encouraged this reading. The constriction and military 
interpretations were found equally among both entering and exiting visitors (2-3% 
each). The military interpretation arose from the tendency of some visitors to 
associate the figure's hat with a helmet, the cape with a military uniform or armor, 
and the glove with a gauntlet. 
Pail. In addition to differing in their mentions of breast and corset, entering and 
exiting visitors differed in their perception of what the figure is holding. Entering 
visitors were nearly three times more likely to describe this item as a pail, bucket, or 
basket, compared to exiting visitors. 
The image of the item held in the figure's left hand is ambiguous. Whether one 
reads it as a pail or a pocketbook depends on one's interpretation of the context. 
Exiting visitors were more inclined to see it as a pocketbook because they were 
almost three times more likely than entering visitors to read the background as an 
urban setting. 
Urban setting. No single element in the background of The Walk clearly points to 
an urban setting. Six works in the exhibition reference the city through their titles 
* See Appendix 2, p. 15 for this visitor's demographic characteristics. 
-5- 
(The Street, 42nd Street, West 48th Street, New York City IV ,  Fifth Avenue, and FBI on 
East 69th Street), but their imagery does not directly depict the physical environment 
of the city. 
Exiting visitors are probably picking up their greater inclination to read the 
background of The Walk as an urban environment through the texts that describe 
Lindner's relationship to New York City. 
Lindner and New York are discussed in one extended label (F.B.I. on East 69th Street) 
and mentioned in passing in the introductory panel. The topic is extensively 
discussed in the panel entitled, "Street Spectacle: The 1960s" and the panel "Pop 
Icons in the 1960s." In "Street Spectacle" Lindner is quoted as saying, 
I am not really an American---I am a New Yorker, a product of New York, 
which anybody is after many years of living in this city and liking the city. In 
New York, everybody's a performer; the city is an enormous stage twenty- 
four hours a day. 
In this text panel he also says about his work from this period, "Often the theme is 
loneliness. I have a feeling that Americans are afraid of being alone---" 
In the exhibition text panel "Pop Icons" Lindner is quoted as saying, 
My figures are the impressions of a tourist visiting New York. . . . I am a 
tourist on a visit to America who has come to see all the sights. In this respect 
Saul Steinberg and I have a lot in common, we were both tourists, both 
arrived at much the same time, we are friends and of course we see New York 
much better than anyone who was born there. I am a tourist everywhere--- 
meaning 'observer.' 
These quotations seem to have had a strong impact on visitors. Three ideas were 
especially prominent among the exiting visitors who demonstrated in their 
interview that they had read a specific exhibition text: loneliness/alienation, Lindner 
as observer/tourist, and Lindner in New York City. Most of these references, in 
turn, point directly to these two panels and to the quotes cited above. One in six 
exiting visitors (17%) gave evidence that they had picked up at least one of these 
three themes from the panel text. 
Alienation. Exiting visitors were nearly four times more likely than entering visitors 
to see the figure in The Walk as lonely, isolated and disconnected. Similarly, exiting 
visitors were nearly four times more likely than entering visitors to say that 
alienation is a theme of The Walk .  (Altogether 7% of the Entrance group and 25% of 
the Exit group mentioned either loneliness or alienation in discussing The Walk.) 
-6- 
We attribute this greater tendency to see loneliness and alienation primarily to the 
general emphasis on loneliness, alienation, and estrangement in the exhibition texts. 
Altogether the exhibition texts raise nine themes as interpretive aids to Lindner's 
work: estrangement, alienation, loneliness, identity, the hollowness of modern 
existence, absurdity of the human condition, moral crises/decay, tragedy, and 
sexual estrangement. When we count the mentions of these themes in the exhibition 
texts, the emphasis on estrangement, loneliness, and alienation becomes clear, as 
shown in Figure 2. 
Figure 2 
Frequency of Interpretive Themes in Exhibition Texts 
(in number of mentions) 
estrangement 
aliena tion 
loneliness 
identity 
hollowness of modern life 
absurdity of human condition 
moral crises/decay 
tragedy 
urban dehumanization 
0 1 2 3 4 
Visitors did not refer to the other six interpretive themes in the exhibition texts when 
discussing The Walk. 
Symbol of women. Compared to exiting visitors, entering visitors were almost twice 
as likely to interpret the figure as a symbol of women or of the role of women in 
society. Most of these visitors saw the figure as representing either the constrictions 
placed on women in society, women as sexual objects, or women as powerful or 
dominant. A few entering visitors, in the absence of information about Lindner or 
his other work, saw this painting as an expression of his concern for women. ("Well, 
maybe, if this is a mixture of roles of a woman that he's, maybe he could be keen to 
demonstrate the various activities and roles of a woman. Maybe he's a feminist." ID 
222)* 
No exiting visitor imagined Lindner to be a feminist. A number of visitors in the 
Exit Group said that they were personally uncomfortable with the way he portrays 
* See Appendix 2, p. 15 for this visitor's demographic characteristics. 
-7- 
women. (..."we thought that a lot of the images were a little offensive just because it 
didn't seem like the women were in very high regard, so we just kind of flew by it. 
Just kind of scurried through like, yes, yes, ok." ID S)* 
Lindner's attitude towards women. Exiting visitors were more than twice as likely 
as entering visitors to see the figure in The Walk as an expression of the thinking or 
experience of the artist. The exhibition, by its retrospective nature, seems to have 
changed the central interpretive issue from "what does this woman represent" to 
"what does Lindner think about women." 
As a retrospective, the exhibition placed the central focus on the artist's life. In view 
of the frequency with which he portrayed women (50 of the 73 works in the 
exhibition include women), and the unusual nature of most of these representations, 
Lindner's attitude towards women became an important issue for exiting visitors. 
("We talked about why he paints women the way he does and did we like it or not." 
ID 155)* 
In the exhibition texts there are a few references to Lindner's use of women as 
subjects. The topic is directly discussed only in one extended text label for a pair of 
paintings of partially unclothed women ("Untitled No. 1" and "Untitled No. 2," 1962). 
For the complete label text, see Appendix 3, p. 16. The final paragraph of this text 
was important to some visitors because it gave them a basis for resisting their 
inclination to criticize Lindner: 
Respondent (R): I'm not real sure why he always depicts his women this way. 
Interviewer (I): Are there any particular elements that suggest confusion to 
R Well, yeah, it's just the continual proportional, it's off balance 
you? 
proportionally. At least this one doesn't have a breast sticking out the side 
like so many of them do. 
I: What does the painting suggest to you about the artist? 
R That he had repressed feelings about women. 
I: Repressed feelings and were they positive or? 
R Women or sex. No, negative. 
I: What suggests the negative feelings? What makes you think that he has this 
R I don't know, the constriction of the corsets all the time and the 
I: Did any of the text you read in the exhibition influence the way you think 
R Yeah, it probably made me feel less negatively toward him and his 
negative relationship with the female. 
misproportion just doesn't seem positive. 
about Lindner's work? 
portrayal of women. Men seemed fairly normal, but women certainly do 
not seem normal in his depictions. 
* See Appendix 2, p. 15 for this visitor's demographic characteristics. 
, -8- 
I: You said. . . 
R If I hadn't read some of it, I would have more of a negative feeling towards 
I: An animosity? 
R Yeah. 
I: What about him changed that for you? 
R He said it was not sexual or erotic. (ID 167)* 
him personally. 
Not all visitors were ready, however, to accept the authority of the exhibition text. 
For some, their own experience of Lindner's paintings remained primary. ('I ... the 
part where he says that he's not really involved with eroticism. I would disagree 
with that." ID 90)" 
Date 1960s. Aided by the chronological layout, the panels for individual decades, 
the orderly progression of Lindner's stylistic development, and particular texts, 
visitors left the exhibition better able to date his work. Among entering visitors only 
13 percent were able to place The Walk in the proper decade (1960s). Nearly twice as 
many of them (24%) thought it was painted in the 1930s, the most popular choice 
among the Entrance Group. On the other hand, 29 percent of exiting visitors 
correctly dated The Walk to the 1960s. 
The Influence of the Exhibition Texts 
We have noted that entering and exiting visitors differed in both their perception 
and interpretation of The Walk. To what extent were these differences due to the 
exhibition texts? 
In two cases, "Pail" and "Symbol of women," the percentage of mentions is lower 
among exiting visitors than among entering visitors. These differences represent the 
effects of other changes, in particular the increased tendency of exiting visitors to 
identify the setting as a city and to focus on Lindner's attitude towards women 
rather than on the possible symbolic content of the imagery. 
In one case, "Breasts," the difference between entrance and exit is due entirely to the 
visual experience of the exhibition, since there is no specific text reference. 
In the remaining six cases, ("Corset," "Urban setting," "Alienation/estrangement," 
"Lonely," "Lindner's attitude towards women," and "Date 1960s") differences might 
have been influenced by the exhibition texts. The remarks of some visitors explicitly 
cite passages from panels and labels, but these few mentions are only one indicator 
of the possible impact of reading in the exhibition. 
" See Appendix 2, p. 15 for th is visitor's demographic characteristics. 
-9- 
We obtained stronger evidence of text influence by dividing the exiting visitors into 
two groups, those who reported having read an above average percentage of text 
and those who reported having read an average or below average percentage (see 
Appendix 4, p. 17). When text contributes substantially to the difference in how 
many visitors make a particular remark, we should see a similar significant 
difference between these two groups. Four categories ("Urban setting," 
"Alienation/estrangement," "Lonely," and "Date 1960s") show significant differences 
between these two reading groups, as shown in Table 2. 
Table 2 
Differences in remarks between levels of reading 
(Exit Group only, in percent) 
Urban setting 
Alienatiodestrangement 
We conclude from this that the higher percentage of references to corset and to 
Lindner's attitude towards women among exiting visitors was probably not due to 
the influence of exhibition texts. On the other hand, the significant differences 
between entrance and exit mentions of an urban setting, alienation or estrangement, 
loneliness, and the correct dating of The Walk were all significantly influenced by 
reading the exhibition texts. In particular, nearly three times as many visitors 
became aware of alienation, estrangement and loneliness in Lindner's painting as a 
result of the exhibition texts. 
Reading Exhibition Texts 
Exiting visitors were asked to estimate what percentage of the exhibition texts they 
read. Half of them said they had read 50 percent or less and half said they had read 
50 percent or more (average 53%).3 About one third of exiting visitors (34%) said 
that they had read 25 percent or less of the texts, one quarter (24%) read between 26 
percent and 74 percent, and 41 percent read 75 percent or more. 
Altogether nearly half of exiting visitors (45%) gave some indication during their 
interview that they had read an exhibition text- Two out of three of these visitors 
3Standard Deviation (SD) = 37%. 
-10- 
(31% overall) made a reference that was clear enough for us to identify the exact 
source. The remainder (14%) gave evidence of having read an exhibition text, 
although we could not identify precisely which text they were referring to. 
For these visitors who made some reference to exhibition texts, the average self- 
estimate of the amount of text they read is 72 percent.4 In other words, naturally 
enough, the visitors who made a reference to text tended to be above average 
readers, i.e., they estimated that they had read more than half of the texts in the 
exhibition. 
Those who reported reading an above-average percentage of text were more likely 
than other visitors to be frequent visitors to the Hirshhorn and to other art 
museums, to read books and magazines about art, and to be considered art 
enthusiasts by their friends. They also spent more time in the Lindner exhibition. 
Visitors did not spend long in the exhibition overall. The average time in the 
exhibition for all exiting visitors was 25 minutes.5 One in six visitors (17%) stayed 40 
minutes or longer. Another one in six (17%) stayed between 30 and 40 minutes. 
About three in six (47%) stayed between 10 minutes and 30 minutes, and the final 
one in six (20%) stayed less than 10 minutes. Those who gave evidence of having 
read texts in the exhibition stayed in the exhibition, on average, three minutes longer 
(28 minutes).6 
One visitor clearly described the benefit of reading both factual and interpretive 
exhibition texts: 
To some extent it's just, a lot of it is just factual information -- this is where he 
grew up, this is when he came to the U.S., this is what he's saying about his 
own work. I mean, that's probably the most interesting. For me, it was the 
most interesting part of the general as well as the specific descriptions 
whenever Lindner is talking about his own work and to some extent it is 
helpful, because a lot of it, for example, there's a group portrait. You get a 
description of who are the different people, so that is in a sense, very basic, 
very factual information. Whenever it sort of moves into interpretation, and 
whenever I'm luckily willing to make the same kind of interpretive step, then 
I can appreciate that, but it's not necessarily helpful. I can sort of think about 
it, do I agree with it or not, but it's not something that I, well, in a sense, I do 
need it because it forces me to think do I agree with it or not. So, ultimately it 
is helpful, not necessarily because I agree with it, but it forces me to think. 
(ID 147)* 
4 ~ ~ = 2 8 % .  
5SD=19 minutes. Half stayed 20 minutes or less and half stayed 20 minutes or more. 
6SD=21 minutes. Half were there 23 minutes or less and half were there 23 minutes or more. 
* See Appendix 2, p. 15 for this visitor's demographic characteristics. 
-11- 
Perhaps because the retrospective format of the exhibition focused so much attention 
on Lindner, visitors seem to have been especially drawn to texts that provided 
information on his life. One in five exiting visitors (20%) cited some aspect of 
Lindner's biography in their discussion of The Walk. ("I mean, the text is very 
helpful. Having no background in art, I enjoy, I like having text there to explain the 
context of where he lived and where he stood in the art community, how he felt 
about things.'' ID 176)* Quotations by Lindner seem to have had the greatest 
impact. 
Altogether half of the exiting visitors (49%) said that they had been influenced by the 
exhibition texts (20% said they had not been influenced). When they described how 
they had been influenced, nearly half (44% of them) cited biographical information, 
and one in six of them (18%) mentioned a description of Lindner's major themes. 
One in seven of them (15%) mentioned some element of interpretation ("Well, 
[without the texts] I w.ouldn't have understood Marilyn Monroe in that one where 
she's the light in the dark and e sex in the shadow and the fear.'' ID 19).* 
The nature of Lindner's imagery made some visitors especially grateful for 
interpretive texts: 
I think it [i.e., text] is always helpful, especially in this kind of painting -- 
where it's not just an emotional thing, but it has a lot of symbolic meaning to 
the artist -- to kind of understand somewhat what he's trying to say because 
you may not have the same reaction and since I've not lived in New York, I 
lived in Maine, my way of saying something would be really different so I 
might not - we speak a different language so the explanations really helped 
and, next time, if I see just a painting hanging, you know, often you just see 
one and you look at it and go, hum, interesting colors or whatever, but you 
don't get as much out of it. (ID 123)* 
Visitors who said that they were not influenced by the Lindner exhibition texts gave 
two primary reasons -- either they had no interest in the texts (6% of all exiting 
visitors) or they considered the visual experience to be primary (4% of all exiting 
visi tors). 
* See Appendix 2, p. 15 for this visitor's demographic characteristics. 
-12- 
Other Inferences 
We can raise further questions about the impact of the Lindner exhibition text by 
combining the results shown in Table 1 with those in Table 2. 
The four types of remarks influenced by reading, as shown in Table 2, were the same 
four in Table 1 that included texts on panels. This suggests the possibility that panel 
texts may have affected visitors in the Lindner exhibition more than label texts, 
perhaps because they were more visible. 
In addition, the strengths of the differences between entrance and exit, as shown by 
the Chi-square values in Table 2, parallels the number of times that a subject was 
mentioned in the exhibition texts, as shown in Table 1. This can imply that the more 
a topic was mentioned in the texts, the more likely it was to be noticed. 
Conclusion 
This study demonstrates that both viewing the paintings and reading the texts 
affected the response of visitors to Lindner's work. The experience of the art made 
visitors more sensitive to common figurative elements in Lindner's painting and 
more attentive to the relationship between Lindner's way of thinking and his 
painting. Reading the text, on the other hand, aided visitors in dating and 
interpreting Lindner's work. It also made them significantly more likely to see The 
Walk as an expression of loneliness or alienation in an urban environment. 
-13- 
Appendix 1 
Questions asked of respondents about The Walk 
What I would like you to do is to talk out loud about the different things that are going through 
your mind while you are looking at the picture. Such as, what you are looking at, what you happen 
to be thinking about. It is as if you were thinking out loud. 
What do you notice first? 
What stands out for you in the painting? 
Does it remind you of anything? 
What kind of feeling or emotion does the painting suggest for you? 
What do you think Lindner wanted to express in this painting? 
Approximately, when do you think the painting was done? 
What does the painting suggest to you about the artist? 
Does the style remind you of any other modern artists? Who? 
Do you find the painting interesting? Why or why not. 
EXIT INTERVIEW ONLY: 
Did you discuss Lindner or his paintings while you were in the exhibition? 
What did you discuss? 
Did any of the text you read in the exhibition influence the way you think about Lindner?s 
work? 
In what way? 
Why not? 
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. Here is a notecard for participating. 
-14- 
Appendix 2 
Demographic characteristics of visitors quoted in this text 
Number of Minutes 
previous visits Percent of spent in the 
ID Gender Age Residence to HMSG text read exhibition 
8 Female 22 MD/VASuburbs 1 to 3 5 40 
19 Female 80 MD/VASuburbs 10 + 98 30 
24 Male 43 MD/VA Suburbs 10 + 100 10 
37 Male 17 Other U.S. 1 t o 3  25 17 
90 Male 43 Other U.S. Never 100 23 
106 Female 65 Other U.S. Never 99 20 
123 Female 49 Other U.S. 10+ 100 90 
147 Male 31 Other U.S. 1 to 3 90 53 
155 Female 21 Wash. DC Never 10 13 
165 Male 49 Other U.S. 1 to 3 80 15 
167 Female 40 Other U.S. Never 100 80 
176 Male 29 Other U.S. 4 to 9 20 18 
222 Male 36 Foreign Never ** ** 
** Not applicable to Entering visitors. 
-15- 
Appendix 3 
Extended label texts mentioned in the study 
"The Corset" (1954) 
In this watercolor, Lindner depicted a woman of amazonian proportions 
either donning or discarding a whale-bone corset. With her ambiguous 
gesture, the woman reveals another, elaborately decorated undergarment 
beneath. That fantastic contraption might represent a girdle, an oversize 
garter belt, or a second corset. Whatever the identity of the mysterious device, 
its faceted planes of color recall the geometric patterns of Native American 
textiles and artifacts that Lindner had begun to collect in his East-side 
apartment. 
of his mother's corset business in Nuremberg, the meaning of such imagery 
remains elusive. Often imbued with erotic symbolism, the corset was 
regarded as a modest foundation garment in the nineteenth century. Yet 
fashion reformers condemned the constricting undergarment as lewd or 
unhealthy. More recently, the tightly laced corset has been identified as an 
instrument of patriarchal oppression of women. In Lindner's work, the corset 
is a complex symbol. Painted during the 1950s, when brassieres and girdles or 
garter belts had largely replaced the more restrictive, single undergarment, 
Lindner's corset-clad women are deliberately anachronistic. Their old- 
fashioned underclothes evoke a bygone era. 
Although Lindner's use of corset imagery was based in part on memories 
"Untitled No. 1" and "Untitled No. 2" (1962) 
Identical in size and vertical format, Untitled No. 1 (no. 29) and Untitled No. 2 
(no. 30), both from 1962, are regarded as pendant paintings. The female 
figures in each canvas epitomize the dominant female type that would 
became Lindner's trademark in the 1960s. These titanic women no longer 
wear anachronistic corsets but instead display more modern attributes--- 
garter belts, stockings, high-heeled pumps, brassieres, and garish makeup. So 
equipped, these women overwhelm their partners. In Untitled No. 1, the 
woman's companion is a dog who serves as surrogate for man. Lindner 
would later explain: 
To make human dramas more interesting, I sometimes incorporate 
other living creatures. . . I've noticed how dog society resembles 
human society. They are afraid of losing their job, and do their best to 
"please the boss." 
Lindner would always deny that such paintings of formidable women and 
estranged couples were either provocative or misogynistic. Instead he contended, 
"I don't think I'm at all concerned with the erotic. I am especially interested in the 
secret relationship of male and female." Speaking of his paintings of couples, he 
observed, "Being two is more lonely than being one, because one is boredom." 
-16- 
Appendix 4 
Percent of exhibition text read 
Exit Only 
Actual Cumulative 
100 
95 
90 
85 
80 
75 
70 
65 
60 
50 
45 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
% Distribution % Distribution 
17.0 100 17.0 
1.3 95 18.3 
7.8 
0.5 
13.5 
1.2 75 41.3 
1.9 
1 .o 
3.3 
0.3 
3.9 
0.2 
2.9 
4.1 25 69.6 
9.4 
1.1 
4.8 
3.0 5 87.9 
10.7 50 58.2 
less than 5.0 12.0 less than 5.0 100.0 
To tal 99.9 
N 158 
-17- 
The Walk, 1961. Oil on canvas. 60 x 52 in. (152 x 132 cm). Private Collection. 
-18- 
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 
to 
Institutional Studies Office 
Smithsonian Institution 
i 
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 
to 
The Influence of Exhibition Texts on Visitor Responses to 
Richard Lindner: Paintings and Watercolors 1948-1977 
Andrew J. Pekarik and Stacey Bielick 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 
The Visitors 
Demographic characteristics ................................................... 1 
Characteristics of the visit .......................................................... 5 
Visitors' experience in the exhibition ............r.......................... 10 
Limitations of the Visitor Profile ............................................... 12 
Comparison of Entrance Group and Control Group ............. 12 
Study Method ........................................................................................... 13 
Tables ......................................................................................................... 17 
Questionnaire & Related Materials ....................................................... 31 
August 1997 
Institutional Studies Office 
Smithsonian Institution 
Upon request, this report can be made available in larger type, Braille, 
audiocassette, or on disk using Wordperfect. Please call 202-786-2289. 
Research Note 97-3 
The Lindner Visitors 
Introduction 
This report contains analyses, tables, and information to supplement the paper 
presenting results from The Influence of Exhibition Texts on Visitor Responses to Richard 
Lindner: Paintings and Watercolors 1948-1977 exhibition study. First, additional 
demographic information is provided about the visitors who were interviewed, 
including comparisons to general Smithsonian audiences and visitors to a 1991 
exhibition at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (HMSG). This is 
followed by a discussion of visitors' experience with the Smithsonian, with art 
museums more generally, and in the exhibition. A final section contains details of 
the methodology, the questionnaire and related materials. 
Demographic Characteristics 
This section outlines the characteristics of visitors to the Lindner exhibition and 
compares Lindner visitors with the overall November Smithsonian audience and 
with a 1991 study of visitors to the Comparisons: An Exercise in Looking temporary 
exhibition at HMSG. The graphs are based on the tables in the following section, 
beginning on page 17. 
Gender 
There were slightly more men in the Lindner audience than women. This gender 
distribution is similar to the overall Smithsonian audience for November, but differs 
from the gender distribution of the Comparisons audience; more women (53%) than 
men (47%) visited the Comparisons exhibition in 1991. 
Figure 1 
Gender of Lindner Visitors 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
-1- 
The average age and median age of Lindner visitors was 42 (Standard Deviation 
(SD)  = 15.5). Most visitors (68%) were between the ages of 25 and 54. Visitors under 
age 35 and visitors ages 35 to 54 each comprised about 40 percent of the audience. 
One in five visitors (18%) was age 55 or older. This age distribution is similar to that 
of the Comparisons exhibition, but differs from the overall Smithsonian audience. 
The most striking difference is there were far fewer visitors under age 20 at the 
Lindner exhibition (4%) than at the Smithsonian overall (10% ages 12 to 19; 27% 
including visitors under age 12). 
Figure 2 
Age of Lindner Visitors 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
'i 
30 25 26 
20 
10 
0 
12 to 20 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 45 or 
19 24 34 44 54 64 older 
Racial/Ethnic Identification 
The Lindner audience resembles the overall Smithsonian audience and the 
Comparisons audience in racial/ethnic identification. Overall, 86 percent of visitors 
to the Lindner exhibition were Caucasian. Looking only at visitors who live in the 
US., nine out of ten U.S. visitors were Caucasian (91%). Visitors who identified 
themselves as members of a U.S. minority group comprised less than ten percent of 
the Lindner audience, the majority of whom were Asian (3%) or Hispanic/Latino 
(3%). 
-2- 
Figure 3 
Racial/Ethnic Identification of Lindner Visitors, U.S. Residents Onlv 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 222 
(in percent) 
Native 
American/Multiple 
African 
American/ Black 
Hispanic / Latino 
3 
Asian/Pacific 
Islander 
White 91 
0 20 40 60 80 100 
Residence 
The majority of the Lindner audience was from outside the Washington, DC 
Metropolitan Area (63%). One-fourth of visitors were from Washington, DC or the 
Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Foreign visitors made up 13% of the audience. The 
residence of visitors to Lindner and Comparisons were almost identical and also 
reflect the overall Smithsonian audience with one exception. There is a higher 
percentage of visitors from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs and a smaller 
percentage of District visitors in the overall November Smithsonian audience. 
Figure 4 
Residence of Lindner Visitors 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
11% Washington, DC 
-3- 
Social Composition of the Visit Group 
Most visitors (91%) came to the museum alone or with other adults. Approximately 
8 out of 10 visitors came either alone or in a pair. Less than ten percent of visitors 
came with children. As we noted earlier, fewer visitors under the age of 20 went to 
see Lindner. This age difference is also reflected in the social composition of the visit 
group where only a small percentage visitors (7%) came to the exhibition with 
children compared to 34 percent of the overall Smithsonian audience and 16 percent 
of the Comparisons audience. 
Figure 5 
Social Composition of the Visit Group for Lindner Visitors 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
School/Tour/Teens 
Several adults 16 
Two adults 39 
One adult 
0 20 40 80 100 
We can speculate that the Lindner exhibition was less appropriate for younger 
visitors than the Comparisons exhibition, however, this age and visit group difference 
could also be attributed to the time of year and any other Mall events occurring 
during the time of studies (e.g. the Cherry Blossom Festival). 
Educational Attainment 
Like many Smithsonian visitors and visitors to the Comparisons exhibition, visitors to 
the Lindner exhibition were well educated as compared to visitors to art museums in 
general and to the U.S. population (see Figure C.5).1 Four out of five visitors to the 
Lindner exhibition, ages 25 or older, had a college or advanced degree (87%). 
See Doering, Z.D. and A. Bickford. (1997). Visitors to the Smithsonian Institution: A Summary of 
Studies. (Report No. 97-3). Washington, DC Smithsonian Institution. 
-4- 
Figure 6 
Comparison of Educational Attainment, 
Lindner, SIMS (Art Museums) and U.S. Census 
Visitors Ages 25 or Older 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
100 
60 8 0 ~  AR 
55 
Lindner Smithsonian SIMS (Art U.S. Census" 
(November) Museums)"" 
High School or Less AA/Some College [II Bachelor's 69 Graduate Degree 
Degreehme Grad. 
Study 
"1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing. Educational Attainment of All Persons 25 years and 
over. U.S. Census Bureau 1990. 
** The Smithsonian Institution Marketing Study (SIMS) was completed in May 1994 for the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary for Institutional Advancement in preparation for the Smithsonian's 150th 
anniversary celebration. 
Characteristics of the Visit 
The following section puts the Lindner visit in context with the visitor's overall 
HMSG and Smithsonian experiences. We look at why visitors came to HMSG, their 
familiarity with the Smithsonian and HMSG and their prior knowledge of the 
Lindner exhibition. 
Reason for Visit to HMSG 
Approximately one in nine visitors came to the Hirshhorn specifically to see the 
Lindner exhibition (12%). Other visitors came because of their interest in modern art, 
art in general or because of the reputation of the museum. About one in five visitors 
(18%) just wandered into the museum as they were walking along the Mall or 
Independence Avenue. 
Visitors who came specifically to see the Lindner exhibition differed from visitors 
who were on a more general visit in a few ways. Lindner visitors were older (55+), 
local and frequent visitors to HMSG and art museums, rated themselves higher, on 
average, in their knowledge of modern art and were often personally involved in art. 
-5- 
Figure 7 
Reason for Visit to HMSG for Lindner Visitors 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
SI info/mag./newspaper 
Shop 
Tour group 
Sculpture Garden 
Recommendation 
Brought/came with guests 
Repeat Visit 
Reputation 
Lindner 
Interest in Modem Art 
Wandered by 
Interest in Art 
0 10 20 30 40 L 
Familiaritv with the Smithsonian 
Most visitors to Lindner had previously visited other Smithsonian museums (82%). 
The Lindner audience was more familiar with the Smithsonian compared to 
Smithsonian visitors overall. There were about 10% more repeat Smithsonian 
visitors at the Lindner exhibition than at the Smithsonian overall. 
Figure 8 
Previous Visits to the Smithsonian for Lindner Visitors 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
First Visit to SI 
82% 
-6- 
Familiarity with HMSG 
In several studies we have found that the number of visits people make to a 
particular museum affects their visit experience. Therefore, visitors? familiarity with 
HMSG, based on the frequency of their visits, is an important variable for 
understanding the Lindner audience. We classify visitors into three visitor types: 
New (first-time visitors); Returning (visited one to three times before); or Frequent 
(visited four or more times in the past). 
Approximately half of the visitors to Lindner were making their first visit to the 
Hirshhorn and half were making a repeat visit (52% New visitors, and 24% for both 
Returning and Frequent visitors). This distribution among new and returning 
visitors parallels the Comparisons audience. 
Figure 9 
Visitor Type for Lindner Visitors 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
Frequent (4+ visits) 
Returning (1-3 visits) 
New 
0 20 40 60 80 100 
Familiarity with the Lindner Exhibition 
Four out of five visitors had not heard of the exhibition prior to their visit (79%). 
Visitors who had heard about the exhibition (21 %) learned about it from media 
reports in the Washington Post and other newspapers or magazines and through 
discussions with family and friends.* As Figure 10 shows, almost twice as many 
local visitors had prior knowledge of the exhibition (44%) than did non-local visitors 
(24 %).3 
Of the 21% of visitors who had prior knowledge of the exhibition, 12% were coming specifically to 
Local visitors are defined as those visitors who live in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Non- 
see Lindner on the day of the interview, and the other 9% were in the museum for other reasons. 
local visitors are visitors residing elsewhere in the United States or who live outside the United States. 
-7- 
Figure 10 
Where Lindner Visitors First Heard of the Exhibition 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
HMSG Calendar T: 
Don'tknow 1; 
On previous visit 
Other source 
Other paper/mag. 
Family /Friends 
Washington Post 
No prior knowledge 
22 
1 20 40 60 80 100 
Familiarity with Art Museums 
Almost all visitors (97%) to the exhibition had previously visited another art 
museum in the year preceding the interview (Oct./Nov. 1995 to Oct./Nov. 1996). 
The number of visits they had made to art museums in the last year was equally 
distributed, a third each, from one to three visits, four to nine, or more than nine 
visits. 
Figure 11 
Freauencv of Visits to Anv Art Museum in the Last Year 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
First Visit this year 
1 to 3 
4 to 9 
10+ 
0 20 40 60 80 100 
-8- 
Familiaritv with Modern Art 
We asked visitors to rate their knowledge of modern art using a scale from one to 
ten where one was "novice" and ten was "expert". Overall, half of the Lindner 
audience rated their knowledge of modern art as novice or close to novice. Less 
than 20 percent of visitors rated their knowledge of modern art toward the high or 
"expert" end of the scale. There was no sigruficant difference between Entrance and 
Exit surveys in how visitors rated their knowledge of modern art. 
Figure 12 
Lindner Visitors' Self-rating of their Knowledge of Modern Art 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
20 
10 
0 
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten 
Novice Expert 
Art Background 
Visitors were shown a card with eight items describing different relationships with 
art, from "general interest in art" to "professional in the arts," and asked to choose as 
many as applied to them. Lindner visitors generally selected between one and two of 
these. 
-9- 
Artist 
Professional in the arts 
Considering career or 
degree 
Art collector 
Art enthusiast 
Create art for own 
enjoyment 
Read books /magazines 
General interest in art 
Figure 13 
Art Background of Lindner Visitors 
Entrance and Exit Surveys Combined, N = 257 
(in percent) 
0 20 40 60 80 100 
Visitors' Experience in the Exhibition 
In the Exit survey, we asked visitors a few questions about the time they spent in the 
exhibition and how much of the exhibition text they read. Both of these questions 
are based on visitors' own self-reports of their visit. Self-reports are generally less 
reliable than the actual observation of visitors in the exhibition, but they can give us 
an approximate idea of how much time visitors spent and how much of the text they 
read. 
Duration of Visit 
Based on their self-reports, visitors spent an average of 25 minutes in the Lindner 
exhibition (M = 24.6, SD = 18.8). As Figure 14 illustrates, about half the visitors 
spent less than 20 minutes in the exhibition. After half an hour, one in three visitors 
(34%) remained in the exhibition. After about an hour, only one out of seventeen 
visitors (6%) remained. 
-10- 
Figure 14 
Duration of Lindner Visit 
Exit Survey Only, N = 158 
(in percent) 
20 
10 
0 
Less 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 More 
than10 minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes than 60 
minutes minutes 
Self-reported Use of Exhibition Texts. Visitors reported reading, on average, 
approximately half of the labels and text panels (M = 53%, SD = 36.7). There were 
nearly as many visitors at the low end of the distribution (34% read 25% or less) as 
there were at the high end (41% read 75% or more). 
Figure 15 
Percent of Text Read 
Exit Survey Only, N = 158 
(in percent) 
30 T 23 24 
20 
10 
0 
0% to 6% to 26% 75% 95% 
5% 25% to to to 
74% 94% 100% 
Visitors who came to HMSG specifically to see the Lindner exhibition reported 
reading, on average, 10 percent more of the labels and text panels (62%) than did 
visitors on a more general visit to HMSG (52%). 
-11- 
Limitations of the Visitor Profile 
The visitors interviewed in this study may not be representative of an entire year's 
audience to HMSG. Our experience has shown clear seasonal differences among 
types of visitors. Results from full-year studies from major Mall museums, for 
example, indicate that summer audiences are dominated by first-time visitors (New 
Visitors), while winter audiences are dominated by repeat visitors (Frequent 
Visitors).* On the Mall, attendance is highest and most strongly reflects Washington, 
DC tourism during the summer months. 
Comparison of the Entrance Group and the Control Group 
The visitors interviewed in the HMSG permanent collection galleries before the 
exhibition opened (Control group) did not significantly differ from those who were 
interviewed at the entrance to the Lindner exhibition (Entrance Group) in any 
demographic features or in background except for one characteristic -- as could be 
anticipated, more Entrance respondents than Control respondents knew about the 
Lindner exhibition before they came to the Hirshhorn (19% vs. 0%). As one might 
expect from this, the responses of the Control group and the Entrance group differed 
in some minor respects. 
Two differences in response to The Walk suggested that visitors entering the Lindner 
exhibition were more positively inclined towards Lindner and more familiar with 
the painting of his time. 
First, one in eight visitors (12%) entering the exhibition volunteered the opinion that 
they liked The Walk, compared to only one of the 72 visitors interviewed in the 
permanent collection. Other opinions about the painting were the same between the 
two groups, including expressions of dislike and evaluative remarks summarized in 
categories such as "unappealing," "strange," "hard to interpret" and "thought- 
provoking." 
Second, visitors in the Entrance group seem to have been somewhat more familiar 
with contemporary painting than those in the Control group, even though their self- 
ratings of their knowledge of modern art were not statistically different. When 
asked what other modern artists were suggested by The Walk, Entrance group 
visitors and Control group visitors equally cited Picasso and Botero, but Entrance 
visitors were nearly twice as likely as Control visitors to cite an artist other than 
Picasso or Botero (26% vs. 14%). 
We conclude that there was a slight, but detectable self-selection effect, i.e., the 
exhibition attracted some visitors who were more responsive to Lindner, either 
because of personal taste or a higher level of knowledge. At the same time, the 
exhibition did not draw an audience significantly different from the usual Hirshhorn 
visitors. 
By our definitions, New Visitors are visiting for the first time. Returning Visitors have been to an 
institution between one and three times in the past. Frequent Visitors have visited four or more times 
in the past. 
-12- 
Study Method 
Obiectives 
The main objective of the study was to evaluate the relationship between the 
interpretive text in the exhibition and visitors' perception, interpretation, opinion 
and knowledge of the exhibition and/or the artist. Secondary objectives were to 
describe the Lindner audience, to ascertain any differences between those who read 
the labels and text panels and those who did not, and to develop new approaches for 
evaluating text in an art museum. 
Specific research questions included 
Were there differences in perception as a result of experiencing the 
exhibition? 
differences in interpretation? 
differences in attitude toward the artist? 
differences in knowledge? 
differences in overall approach to interpretation? 
To what extent can these differences be attributed to visitors' exposure to 
works of the artist or to exhibition text? 
can we distinguish between the effect of exposure and effect of text? 
Are there differences in the ways that visitors use exhibition texts? 
Overall Design 
Data for this study were collected in personal interviews, with two systematic 
scientific samples: visitors entering the Lindner Exhibition (Entrance Survey) and 
visitors exiting the exhibition (Exit Survey).l We also conducted a Ncontrol" study 
before the exhibition opened in order to gauge the possible impact of media 
reporting or other pre-opening information on visitors' knowledge about Richard 
Lindner and/or the exhibition. Interviewing was conducted between November 5 
and 18,1996 for the exhibition study and between October 11 and 15,1996 for the 
control study. 
For this project we used a "continuous sampling" technique, a special procedure 
developed for sampling a mobile population.2 We used teams of two or three 
people (one to select respondents for interviewing plus one or two interviewers) to 
conduct the study. 
The samples were independent. 
The procedure and its rationale are described in Z. D. Doering, A. E. Kindlon and A. Bickford, The 
Power of Maps: A Study of an Exhibition at the Caaper-Hewitt National Museum of Design. Report 93-5. 
(Washington, D. C.: Srnithsonian Institution, 1993). 
-13- 
Interviews were conducted on each day of the week. Exit and Entrance Surveys 
were coordinated so that the same people could not be selected for both. Visitor 
cooperation with the study was high, 85.1 percent of eligible respondents completed 
interviews in the Entrance Survey and 87.4 percent in the Exit Survey, for an overall 
response rate of 86.5%.3 A total of 103 interviews were completed in the Entrance 
Survey and 153 interviews in the Exit Survey. The intercepted individuals represent 
a population of over 3,570 visitors to the exhibition during the survey period. In 
appreciation for their cooperation, respondents were given notecards from previous 
exhibitions at the Hirshhorn. 
Questions: Entrance and Exit Survevs 
To meet our objectives, the questionnaire for the study had to collect information 
with which to assess the extent to which the text was read and the changes in visitor 
perspectives as a result of a visit, as well as provide an audience profile. 
Questionnaire. The initial portion of both the Entrance and Exit Survey 
questionnaires collected general information about the visit. Aside from asking 
about prior visits to HMSG we asked for visitors' sources of information, if any, 
about the exhibition. We also asked about their art background and knowledge of 
modern art. 
An identical set of personal background characteristics was collected from all 
visitors: residence, who accompanied the respondent to the Hirshhorn, age, 
educational attainment , racial/ethnic identification and gender. 
The questionnaire also included a section for recording administrative information. 
This included the time, date and location of the interview, and the reason, if 
applicable, that an interview was not completed (e.g., Smithsonian employee). An 
interviewer training manual was developed for the study.4 
Questionnaire development included experimentation with the order of the 
questions. That is, we tried not only different items but also different orders. 
Approximately 30 preliminary questionnaires were administered by Institutional 
Studies staff as part of questionnaire development. 
Oualitative, Audio-recorded Interviewing. In order to determine how a visitor's 
understanding of Lindner's work was affected by the exhibition, we showed each 
visitor who was selected for the interview a reproduction of a Lindner painting, The 
Walk (1961), that had been chosen for the exhibition but which could not be included 
in it. The respondent was asked to respond to a series of open-ended questions 
3See below for a discussion of these response rates and the response bias in the study. 
4General interviewing instructions were based on Institutional Studies, A Manual for Interviewers. 
Prepared for the 1988 National Air and Space Survey. Report 88-3. (Washington, D. C. : Smithsonian 
Institution, 1988). The general instructions and question-by-question specifications for this study are 
available from the Institutional Studies office. 
-14- 
about the painting. These inquiries led in a graduated way from general questions 
about perceptions to increasingly specific questions about interpretation. 
Interviewers were instructed to follow the sequence and to use the exact wording of 
the script, but they were also asked to probe with follow-up requests for fuller 
explanations when responses were unclear or seemed incomplete. These exchanges 
between interviewer and respondent were recorded on tape recorders and 
transcribed. 
Sample Design - and Selection 
Interviews were conducted every day and, within each day, there were three 
interviewing sessions per day (11:OO AM -12:30 PM, 1:30-3:00 PM, and 3:15-4:45 
PMl5 
Sample selection followed procedures established by IS0 for its studies.6 Within 
each time interval selected for the survey, a team leader, or "counter," used a 
mechanical counter and a stop watch to keep track of the number of persons exiting 
(or entering) the exhibition within 15 minute intervals. The counter also identified 
the visitors to be intercepted, whenever an interviewer had completed one interview 
and was ready to begin the next.7 For logistical and technical reasons, interviews 
were not conducted with members of school or tour groups. Thus, our data pertain 
to "voluntary visitors." 
Data Preparation and Coding. 
The questionnaires were reviewed in the office to ensure that the data file included 
the appropriate information for weighting the data, and the codes assigned to the 
open-ended survey questions. 
The taped porition of the interivew was transcribed and the text was coded in 
NUD*IST (version 3), a computer program for text analysis. Content was coded in 
two stages. The first stage, the most detailed level of coding, used a structure with 
approximately 400 categories to classify the remarks of the Control Group and the 
Exit Group. In the second stage, a more concise structure of about 100 categories, 
based on the patterns that arose in the first stage, was used to classify all Entrance 
Group and Exit Group remarks. The frequency of responses in all coding categories 
were compared between entrance and exit using the chi-square test with a 
significance level of .05. When the significance tests showed that some response 
categories were significantly different between entrance and exit, we assumed that 
this reflected the experience of viewing of paintings and/or reading the texts. 
The schedule is on file, EO. 
See Z. D. Doering, A. E. Kindlon and A. Bickford, The Power of Maps: A Study of an Exhibition at the 
Caaper-Hewitt National Museum of Design. Report 93-5. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution, 
1993). 
7This method of selecting a sample keeps the interviewers fully occupied, compared to an equal 
interval selection method; the counter is essentially incorporating a self-adjusting selection interval. 
-15- 
Completion Rates and Response Bias 
Table 14, at the end of this section, summarizes the results of the field work. As 
shown, 14.9 percent of all persons intercepted in the Entrance Survey and 12.6 
percent in the Exit Survey refused to participate in the survey. The overall refusal 
rate was 13.5 percent. While a few refusals were due to language difficulties, the 
majority of refusals were for "other" reasons (e.g., visitors in a hurry, not wanting to 
detain companions, etc.). 
To check for possible bias, we compared separate demographic characteristics 
available for both visitors who completed interviews and visitors who refused for 
any reason (from observations). These include type of interview (Entrance vs. Exit), 
residence, age, gender, and racial/ethnic identification. Our analysis, using 
multivariate statistical models, shows that individuals entering the exhibition were 
more likely to refuse when compared to those exiting, all else being equal. In 
addition, women were more likely to refuse in the Entrance survey in comparison to 
men in the Entrance survey.8 
We also used a multivariate model to determine if there was any difference between 
the demographic characteristics of visitors interviewed in the Entrance and Exit 
Surveys, since our analysis approach assumed comparable data from both surveys. 
Respondents in both samples were found to be identical on all characteristics, except 
that more visitors from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs and fewer foreign 
visitors were interviewed in the Entrance Survey. Since we had two other data 
sources, the Exit Survey and the Control Study, to compare residence, we were able 
to adjust the weights accordingly to reflect the other two sample populations.9 
Data on file, ISO. 
Data on file, ISO. In order to adjust the weights for residence we doubled the weights of foreign 
visitors and reduced by half the weights of suburban visitors in the Entrance survey only. By 
increasing the weights of one category and reducing the other the weighted N remained close to the 
original weight and N of the actual population. This process can be illustrated by an equation: For 
foreign residents in the Entrance survey the equation was (weight x 2 = weight2); for suburban 
residents the equation was (weight x .5 = weight2). All other weights remained based on the actual 
number of visitors counted during the interviewing sessions. 
-16- 
Entrance and Exit Survey Tables 
Table 1 
Gender, Ane, Racial/Ethnic Identification 
November 1996, Entrance, Exit and Control Surveys 
(In Percent) 
Gender 
Female 
Male 
Total 
bs 
12 to 19 
20 to 24 
25 to 34 
35 to44 
45 to 54 
55 to 64 
65 or older 
Total 
N 
Racial/Ethnic Identitv-US Odv 
Minority 
African American/Black 
Asian/Pacific Islander 
Hispanic/Latino 
Native American/Multiple 
White 
Total 
N 
Racial/Ethnic Identitv--All 
Minority 
African American/Black 
Asian/Pacific Islander 
Hispanic/Latino 
Native American/Multiple 
White 
Total 
N 
Twve of Interview 
Entrance b 
Control Entrance Exit Exit Total 
47.2 
52.8 
100.0 
9.7 
4.2 
26.4 
13.9 
13.9 
16.7 
15.3 
100.0 
72 
9.8 
1.6 
6.6 
1.6 
0.0 
90.2 
100.0 
61 
12.5 
4.2 
5.6 
2.8 
0.0 
87.5 
100.0 
_ .  72 
47.6 
52.4 
100.0 
4.7 
13.9 
22.0 
18.5 
25.7 
7.3 
7.9 
100.0 
99 
11.9 
1.3 
5.4 
1.9 
3.3 
- 88.1 
100.0 
89 
15.1 
1.1 
8.1 
2.8 
3.0 
- 84.9 
100.0 
99 
48.5 
51.5 
100.0 
3.3 
7.5 
27.1 
16.6 
25.7 
12.9 
7.0 
100.0 
158 
7.3 
1.4 
2.0 
3.9 
0.0 
92.8 
100.0 
133 
13.0 
1.4 
6.5 
5.1 
0.0 
87.0 
100.0 
158 
48.2 
51.9 
100.0 
3.8 
9.9 
25.1 
17.4 
25.7 
10.7 
- 7.4 
100.0 
257 
9.1 
1.4 
3.3 
3.1 
1.3 
- 90.9 
100.0 
222 
13.8 
1.3 
7.1 
4.2 
1.2 
- 86.2 
100.0 
257 
Richard Lindner at NMSG -17- Source: Institutional Studies Office (ISO: 
Table 2 
Residence 
November 1996, Entrance, Exit and Control Surveys 
(In Percent) 
T m e  of Interview 
Entrance b 
Control Entrance Exit Exit Total 
Local Distribution 
Washington, DC 
MD/VA Suburbs 
Other US. 
Foreign 
2.8 12.3 9.6 10.6 
16.7 13.7 12.0 12.7 
65.3 64.3 62.7 63.3 
15.3 - 9.8 15.7 13.4 
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
N 72 99 158 257 
Richard Lindner at HMSG - 18 - Source: Institutional Studies Office (ISO) 
Table 3 
Social Composition of the Visit Grouu 
November 1996, Entrance, Exit and Control Surveys 
(In Percent) 
Type ofliztmiao 
Entrance & 
Control Entrance Exit Exit Total 
C0nfip;uration I of Grouu 
One adult 31.9 37.6 37.0 37.2 
Two adults 45.8 39.2 38.9 39.0 
Several adults 
Adult(s) and child(ren1 
Adult with child(ren) 
8.3 16.6 15.0 15.7 
7.0 5.5 7.3 6.7 
4.2 2.6 1.4 1.9 
Sev. adults with childken) 2.8 2.9 5.3 4.4 
Children 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 
SchooUToudTeens 7.0 1.1 1.8 1.5 
School trip 4.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 
Tour group 
Group of teens 
1.4 0.0 0.3 0.2 
1.4 - 1.1 - 1.0 - 1 .o 
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
N 72 99 158 257 
Richard Lindner at HMSG - 19 - Source: Institutional Studies Office (IS01 
Table 4 
Educational Attainment 
November 1996, Entrance, Exit and Control Surveys 
(In Percent) 
Twve ofInteruiew 
Entrance & 
Control Entrance Exit Exit Total 
Educational Attainment 
Age 22 m Older 
Pre/Grade School 
Some High School 
High School Graduate 
AA/ Jr. College/Technical 
Some College 
Bachelor's Degree 
Some Graduate School 
MA/ PhD /Professional 
Total 
N 
0.0 
6.9 
8.3 
2.8 
12.5 
36.1 
5.6 
27.8 
100.0 
72 
0.6 0.0 
4.2 3.6 
0.2 4.6 
1.7 3.9 
13.0 8.1 
31.9 33.8 
3.9 6.3 
44.6 39.6 
100.0 100.0 
99 158 
0.2 
3.8 
2.9 
3.1 
10.0 
33.1 
5.4 
41.5 
100.0 
257 
Apes 25 or Older 
High School or Less 9.7 0.0 5.6 3.6 
AA/ Jr. Coll./Tech/Some Coll. 11.3 8.8 10.5 9.9 
Bachelor's/Some Graduate 46.8 37.4 39.6 38.8 
MA/PhD/Professional 32.3 53.9 44.3 47.8 
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
N 62 80 141 222 
Richard Eilzdner at HMSG -20-  Source: Institutional Studies Office (IS01 
Table 5 
Comparison of Educational Attainment, 
U.S. Census, 1994 Smithsonian Institution Marketing Studv and Richard Lindner at HMSG 
People 25 Years of Age or Older 
(In Percent) 
U.S. Census" 
All Persons 
Educational Attainment 
High School or Less 54.8 
AA/Some College 24.9 
Bachelor's Degree/Some Grad. Study 13.1 
Graduate Degree - 7.2 
Total 100.0 
SIMS"" Smithsonian 
Visit Visit November 
A n y  Museum Art Museums 
47.6 32.3 12.3 
23.0 26.4 16.5 
19.5 26.5 34.2 
9.9 14.8 ~ 36.9 
100.0 100.0 99.9 
Lindner 
3.6 
9.9 
38.8 
47.8 
100.0 
** The Smithsonian Institution Marketing Study (SIMS) was completed in May 1994 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Institutional Advancement in preparation for 
the Smithsonian's 150th anniversary celebration. 
Richard Lindner at HMSG -21 - Source: Institutional Studies Office (IS01 
Table 6 
Occupation - All Ages 
November 1996, Entrance, Exit and Control Surveys 
(In Percent) 
T w e  of Interview 
Entrance b 
Control Entrance Exit Exit Total 
Occupation 
Exec / Prof / Management 
Engineer /Architect 
Professional Specialties 
Sales, Tech/Admin. Support 
Service 
Farming/Forestry /Fishing 
Skilled/Semi-skilled Labor 
Active Military 
Student/na 
Other Non-Labor Force 
Writers, Artists, Musicians 
Retired 
Total 
4.2 
2.8 
26.4 
15.3 
1.4 
0.0 
7.0 
1.4 
18.1 
6.9 
11.1 
5.6 
100.0 
14.7 
7.7 
40.1 
10.8 
1.7 
0.0 
0.3 
0.0 
12.7 
2.4 
7.4 
2.3 
100.0 
11.7 
6.0 
35.2 
14.1 
4.9 
0.5 
0.5 
0.0 
8.7 
1.5 
14.1 
2.9 
100.0 
12.8 
6.6 
37.1 
12.8 
3.6 
0.3 
0.4 
0.0 
10.2 
1.8 
11.5 
2.7 
100.0 
N 72 99 158 257 
Richard Lindner at HMSG -22 -  Source: Institutional Studies Office (IS01 
Table 7 
Reason For Visit to HMSG 
November 1996, Entrance, Exit and Control Surveys 
(In Percent) 
Twe of Interview 
Entrance b 
Control Entrance Exit Exit Total 
Reason For Visit 
Recommendation 5.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 
Tour group 6.9 3.5 1.7 2.4 
Brought/came with guests 8.3 3.9 6.2 5.3 
Shop 
Reputation 
Wandered by 
0.0 1.6 0.0 0.6 
15.3 10.2 8.9 9.4 
9.7 16.5 18.9 18.0 
SI info/magazine/newspaper 2.8 0.0 0.6 0.4 
Interest in Modern Art 8.3 21.0 12.7 15.9 
Interest in Art 22.2 20.5 21.9 21.4 
Sculpture Garden 9.7 1 .a 2.9 2.5 
Repeat Visit 9.7 7.7 8.0 7.9 
Lindner - 1.4 9.0 13.8 11.9 
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
N 72 99 158 257 
Richard Lindner at HMSG -23 - Source: Institutional Studies Office (ISO) 
Table 8 
Number of Visits to HMSG and Art Museums 
November 1996, Entrance, Exit and Control Surveys 
(In Percent) 
T m e  of Interview 
Entrance b 
Control Entrance Exit Exit Total 
Number of Visits to HMSG 
First Visit 
1 to 3 
4 to 9 
10+ 
Total 
HMSG Visitor Tvpe 
New 
Returning (1-3 visits) 
Frequent (4+ visits) 
Total 
Previouslv Visited Other Smithsonian Museums 
First Visit to SI 
Repeat Visit to SI 
Total 
Frequency of Visits to Anv Art Museum in the Last Year 
First Visit this year 
1 to3 
4 to 9 
10+ 
Total 
56.9 
25.0 
6.9 
11.1 
100.0 
56.9 
25.0 
18.1 
100.0 
34.7 
65.3 
100.0 
16.7 
33.3 
27.8 
22.2 
100.0 
56.6 
19.3 
8.2 
15.9 
100.0 
56.6 
19.3 
24.1 
100.0 
14.7 
85.3 
100.0 
5.7 
25.3 
37.2 
31.8 
100.0 
49.1 52.0 
27.4 24.3 
12.7 11.0 
10.8 12.7 
100.0 100.0 
49.1 52.0 
27.4 24.3 
23.5 - 23.7 
100.0 100.0 
20.1 18.0 
79.9 - 82.0 
100.0 100.0 
1 .o 2.8 
38.4 33.3 
26.7 30.7 
34.0 33.2 
100.0 100.0 
Richard Lindner at HMS G -24 -  Source: Institutional Studies Office (ISO) 
Table 9 
Prior Knowlege of Lindner Exhibition 
November 1996, Entrance and Exit Surveys 
(In Percent) 
T m e  of Intervim 
Entrance b 
Control Entrance Exit Exit Total 
Prior Knowlege of Lindner Exhibition * 
No prior knowledge 
Prior knowledge 
Washington Post 
Other newspaper /magazine 
Family /Friends 
On previous visit to HMSG 
HMSG Calendar 
Don't know 
Other 
Total 
I- 80.9 77.7 79.0 
-- 19.1 22.2 21.1 
4.6 
4.7 
6.7 
1.4 
0.3 
1 .o 
- 0.5 
100.0 
8.4 
3.7 
3.9 
2.0 
0.0 
1 .o 
3.2 
100.0 
7.0 
4.1 
5.0 
1.8 
0.1 
1 .o 
2.2 
100.0 
N 99 158 257 
Table 9a 
Prior Knowlege of Lindner Exhibition, bv Residence 
November 1996, Entrance and Exit Surveys 
(In Percent) 
Residence 
Local Nan-Local Total 
Prior Knowlege of Lindner Exhibition 
No prior knowledge 55.6 86.1 79.0 
Prior knowledge 44.4 14.0 21.1 
Washington Post 
Other newspaper /magazine 
Family /Friends 
On previous visit to HMSG 
HMSG Calendar 
Don't know 
Other 
22.4 2.3 7.0 
1.9 4.7 4.1 
13.3 2.4 5.0 
5.4 0.7 1.8 
0.0 0.1 0.1 
0.0 1.3 1 .o 
- 1.5 - 2.4 - 2.2 
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
N 99 158 257 
Familiarity with "The Walk" painting 
Have seen it before 
Have not seen it before 
Entrance t3 Exit Total 
0.8 
99.2 
Total 100.0 
N 257 
Richard Lindner at HNSG -25 -  Source: Institutional Studies Office (IS01 
Table 10 
Art Backmound 
November 1996, Entrance, Exit and Control Surveys 
(In Percent) 
Control 
Art Background 
Professional in the arts 5.6 
Artist 15.3 
Considering career or degree 2.8 
Create art for own enjoyment 15.3 
Art collector 13.9 
Read books/magazines 26.4 
Art enthusiast 19.4 
General interest in art 48.6 
T w e  of Interview 
Entrance & 
Entrance Exit Exit Total 
7.4 9.0 8.4 
15.4 10.8 12.6 
4.4 4.8 4.6 
18.0 27.8 24.0 
19.8 12.7 15.4 
23.1 26.2 25.0 
15.2 27.4 22.7 
56.5 45.2 49.5 
N 72 I 99 158 257 
*Totals equal more than 100% because visitors could give more than one response. 
Richard Lindrter at HMSG -26 -  Source: Institutional Studies Office (IS01 
Table 11 
Visitor Self-Rated Knowledge of Modern Art 
November 1996, Entrance, Exit and Control Surveys 
(In Percent) 
T w e  of Interview 
Entrance & 
Control Entrance Exit Exit Total 
Visitor Self-Rated Knowledge of Modern Art: 
l=Novice 10=Exeert 
One 20.8 22.2 22.4 22.3 
Two 11.1 13.3 14.5 14.1 
Three 19.4 21.3 13.1 16.3 
Four 12.5 9.9 11.6 10.9 
Five 13.9 13.3 11.1 11.9 
Six 9.7 2.8 9.4 6.9 
Seven 11.1 7.4 9.0 8.4 
Eight 0.0 8.5 2.9 5.1 
Nine 1.4 1.3 3.4 2.6 
Ten - 0.0 0.0 - 2.6 - 1.6 
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Condensed Categories 
1 to 3 
4 to 6 
7 to 10 
51.4 56.9 50.0 52.6 
36.1 25.9 32.1 29.7 
12.5 17.2 17.9 17.7 
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
N 72 99 158 257 
Richard Lindner at HMS G -27-  Source: Institutional Studies Office (IS01 
Table 12 
Duration of Visit, November 1996, Exit Survey 
(In Percent) 
Duration of Visit 
Less than 10 minutes 
10 to 20 minutes 
20 to 30 minutes 
30 to 40 minutes 
40 to 50 minutes 
50 to 60 minutes 
More than 60 minutes 
Exit Only 
19.5 
25.4 
21.6 
16.8 
3.4 
7.8 
5.5 
Total 100.0 
N 158 
Richard Lindner at HMSG -28- Source: Institutional Studies Office (ISO) 
Table 13 
Percent of Text Read, November 1996, Exit Survey 
(In Percent) 
100 
95 
90 
85 
80 
75 
70 
65 
60 
50 
45 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
Actual Cumulative 
% Distribution % Distribution 
17.0 100 17.0 
1.3 95 18.3 
7.8 
0.5 
13.5 
1.2 75 41.3 
1.9 
1.0 
3.3 
10.7 
0.3 
3.9 
0.2 
2.9 
4.1 25 69.6 
9.4 
1.1 
4.8 
3.0 5 87.9 
50 58.2 
less than 5.0 12.0 less than 5.0 100.0 
Total 99.9 
N 158 
Table 13a 
Did Visitors Read the Brochure Before Exitinz? 
November 1996, Exit Survey 
(In Percent) 
Exit Only 
Brochure 
Read Brochure 17.1 
Did not read brochure 82.9 
Picked up/not read 37.5 
Not picked up - 45.5 
Total 100.0 
N 153 
Richard Lindner at HMSG -29- Source: Institutional Studies Office (ISO) 
Table 14 
Completion Rates 
November 1996, Entrance and Exit Surveys 
(Frequency and Percent)* 
Type Entrance Exit Total 
N % N 7% N 7% 
A. Disuosition, All Eligible - Visitors 
Interviews 103 85.12 153 87.43 256 86.49 
Non-Interviews 18 14.88 22 12.57 40 13.51 
Refusal, Language Difficulty 4 3.31 5 2.86 9 3.04 
Refusal, Other Reason 14 11.57 17 9.71 31 10.47 
Total 121 100.00 175 100.00 296 100.00 
B. Response Rates 
All Eligible Visitors 85.12 87.43 86.49 
* Frequencies and percents are based on unweighted data. 
Richard Lindner at HMSG -30- Source: Institutional Studies Office (ISQ) 
ENTRY Interviewer count H 
Richard Lindner at the Hirshhorn Museum 1996 Exhibition Study 
Hello. My name is . I work for the Smithsonian and would like to ask you a few questions to help us prepare for an 
upcoming exhibition. First I want to ask you some questions about you and your visit here today. 
1. Is -your first visit to this museum? 
0 No ASK Qla. 0 Yes [GOTO 421 
la. How many times have you been here i&xg today? 
0 1 - 3  04-9 01OC 
2. a today, have you visited other Smithsonian 
O N 0  ~ 
museums? 0 Yes 
state/ctry *3. Where do you live? 
0 Washington, D.C. 
0 MDNA suburbs 0 Foreign 
0 Other U.S. 
4. Altogether, how many times have you visited an art 
museum since November 1995, Le. in the last year? 
5. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is novice and 10 is 
expert, how would you rate your knowledge of 
m~dern  art? Record number 
6. Which of the following apply to you? [SHOW CARD] 
0 1-3 04-9 0 10+ 0 none 
~ 
qbcale 
0 A. I am a professional in the arts. [m ALL1 
0 B.Iamanartist. 
0 C. I am considering a career or degree in the arts. 
0 D. I create art for my own enjoyment, but ... 
0 E. I am an art collector. 
0 F. I regularly read books/magazines about art. 
0 G. My friends consider me an art enthusiast. 
0 H. I have a general interest in art. tn 
0-p 
7. What kind of work do you do? 
8. What is the highest level of education 
you have completed? 
0 Pre/grade school 0 Some college 
0 Some HS 0 Bachelor's degree 
0 HS graduate 0 Some graduate study 
0 Assoc./Jr./Technical 0 MAPh.D./Professional 
tn 
extra 
*9. What is your age? 
*lo. What is your cultural/racial/ethnic identity? age 
0 African Am/Black 0 Hispanic/Latino 
0 Asian/Pacific Islander 0 Native WAK Native 
0 Caucasian Other 0 
*11. Gender (MARK DO NOT ASK) 
0 Female 0 Male 
*12. Who are you here with today? 
0 Alone 0 Adults w/child(ren) 
0 One other adult 
0 Several adults 
0 Child(ren) 0 School group 
0 Adult w/child(ren) 
0 Group of teens 
0 Tour group 
13. What is t h e u r e a s o n  you visited the Hirshhorn today? 
0 Recommendation: family/fkiend 
0 Brought out-of-town guest 
0 Came with family/friend 
0 Tour/school group 
0 Shop 0 Sculpture Garden 
0 Reputation 0 Repeat visit 
0 Wandered by 0 h d n e r  0 
0 Castle/SI info Othedspecific 
0 SI Magazine 
0 Newspaper 
0 Interest in modem art 
0 Interest in art (general) 
14. Had you heard about the Lindner exhibition before 
you came to the museum today? 0 Yes 0 No 
0 Washington Post 
0 Other newspaper 
0 TVRadio Other 
0 Friends/family 
14a. Where did you hear about it? Anywhere else? 
0 On previous visit to HMSG 
0 HMSG Calender 
0 Magazine 0 Don't know 0 
Now, in this part of the interview, I'd like to talk to you about a 
painting. So I don't have to take notes, I am going to use a tape 
recorder ifthat is okay with you: 
This is a painting by Richard Lindner. Have you seen 
it before? 0 Yes 0 No Pegin 'painting' questions] 
ON RECORDER] 
Reason for refusalhelig. STATUS: 
0 Interview 
0 SI staff/mntractor 
0 Ineligible 
0 Refusal Language 
0 Refusal: Other 
Session Segment Shift Type of Int. 
0 11:00-12:30 OEntry 
0 2  
0 3  0 1:30-3:OO OExit 
O 0 3:15-4:45 O Control 
0 5  
0 6  
71 45 
-31- 
EXIT Count II Interviewer 
Richard Lindner at the Hirshhorn Museum 1996 Exhibition Study 
Hello. My name is . I work for the Smithsonian and would like to ask you a few questions to help us prepare for an 
upcoming exhibition. First I want to ask you some questions about you and your visit here today. 
1. Is -your first visit to this museum? 
0 NO ASK Qla. 0 Yes [GOTO QZ] 
la. How many times have you been here before today? 
today, have you visited other Smithsonian 
0 1 - 3  04-9 0 1 0 +  
2. 
O N 0  iiil museums? 0 Yes 
statelctry *3. Where do you live? 
0 Washington, D.C. 
0 MD/VA suburbs 0 Foreign 
0 Other U.S. 
4. Altogether, how many times have yon visited an art 
museum since November 1995, Le. in the last year? 
5. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is novice and 10 is 
expert, how would you rate your knowledge of 
" h - n  art? Record number 
6. Which of the following apply to you? [SHOW CARD] 
0 1-3 04-9 0 lo+ Onone 
U I  
tn 
qkcale 
0 A. I am a professional in the arts. ALL1 
0 B. I am an artist. 
0 C. I am considering a career or degree in the arts. 
0 D. I create art for my own enjoyment, but ... 
0 E. I am an art collector. 
0 E I regularly read bookdmagazines about art. 
0 G. My friends consider me an art enthusiast. 
0 H. I have a general interest in art. 
extra, 
7. What kind of work do you do? 
8. What is the highest level of education 
you have completed? 
0 &/grade school 0 Some college 
0 Some HS 0 Bachelois degree 
0 HS graduate 0 Some graduate study 
0 Assoc./Jr./Technical 0 IvlA/Ph.D./Professional 
*9. What is your age? 
*lo. What is your cultural/raciaUethnic identity? 
-P 
tn 
age 
0 African Am/Black 0 HiSpanic/Latino 
0 Asian/Pacific 
0 Caucasian Other 0 
0 Native WAK Native 
*11. Mark Gender: 0 Rmale 0 Male 
*12. Who are you here with today? 
0 Alone 0 Adults w/chjld(ren) 
0 One other adult 
0 Several adults 
0 Child(ren) 0 School group 
0 Adult w/child(ren) 
0 Group of teens 
0 Tour group 
13. What is t h e a r e a s o n  you visited the Hirshhorn today? 
0 Recommendation: family/fiiend 
0 Brought out-of-town guest 
0 Came with family/friend 
0 Tour/school group 
0 Shop 0 Sculpture Garden 
0 Reputation 0 Repeat visit 
0 Wandered by 0 Lindner 
0 Castle/SI info Other/spec%c 
14. Had you heard about the Lindner exhibition before 
you came to the museum today? 0 Yes 0 No 
0 SI Magazine 
0 Newspaper 
0 Interest in modern art 
0 Interest in art (general) 
14a. Where did you hear about it? Anywhere else? 
0 Washington Post 
0 Other newspaper 
0 Tv/Radio Other 
0 Friends/family 
0 On previous visit to HMSG 
0 HMSG Calender 
0 Magazine 0 Don't b o w  0 
Now I'd like to ask you a few questions about your experience 
in the exhibition. 
15. When did you enter the exhibition? 
16. Did you pick up an exhibition brochure? 0 Yes 
17. Did you notice the labels and text panels that discuss the 
paintings or the artist? 0 Yes 0 No 
17a. What percent of the ones you noticed did you read? 
tn Minute - Horn 
0 No 
16a. Have you read any of it? 0 Yes 0 No 
ql7read 
In this part of the interview, I'd like to talk to you about a 
painting. So I don't have to take notes, I am going to use a tape 
recorder if that is okay with you: 
This is a painting by Richard Lindner. Have you seen 
it before? 0 Yes 0 No pegin 'painting' questions] 
ON RECORDER] 
Type of interview Session: Reason for refusflinelig: Status: Segment Shift 
0 Interview 0 1 0 4  0 11:OO-12:30 O h t r y  
0 Ineligible 0 2 0 5  0 1:30-3:00 OExit 
- 0 SI staff/contractor 
0 Refusal: Language 
0 Refusal: Other 0 3 0 6 0 3:15-4:45 0 Control 
-32- 
PHASE1 Count w Interviewer 
Richard Lindner at the Hirshhorn Museum 1996 Exhibition Study 
Hello. My name is . I work for the Smithsonian and would like to ask you a few questions to help us prepare for an 
upcoming exhibition. First I want to ask you some questions about you and your visit here today 
*l. Is your first visit to this museum? 
0 YeS [GOTO QZ] 
la. How many times have you been here 
0 No ASK Qla.  
today? 
0 1-3 04-9 0 10+ 
2. Befare today, have you visited other Smithsonian 
museums? 0 Yes 0 No m 
3. Where do you live? 
0 Washington, D.C. 
0 MDRA suburbs 0 Foreign 
u
state/ctry 
0 Other U.S. 
4. Altogether, how many times have you visited an art  
museum since October 1995, Le. in the last year? 
0 1-3 0 4-9 0 10+ 0 none 
5. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is novice and 10 is 
expert, how would you rate your knowledge of 
modern art? Record number 
5. Which of the following apply to you? [SHOW CARD] 
[MARK ALL THAT APPLY] 
m 
0 A. I am a professional in the arts. 
0 E. I am an artist. 
0 C. I am considering a career or degree in the arts. 
0 D. I create art for my own enjoyment, but ... 
0 E. I am an art collector. 
0 F. I regularly read bookdmagazines about art. 
0 G. My friends consider me an art enthusiast. 
0 JX I have a general interest in art. 
7. What kind of work do you do? 
m 
8. What is the highest level of education 
you have completed? 
0 Pre/grade school 
0 Some HS 
0 HS graduate 
0 Assoc./Jr./Technical 0 MA/F'h.D./Professional 
0 Some college 
0 Bachelor's degree 
0 Some graduate study 
m 9. What is your age? Record Age: 
10. Gender (MARK DO NOT ASK) 
0 Rmale 0 Male 
11. What is your cultural/racial/ethnic identity? 
0 Afiican American/Black 0 Hispanic/Latino 
0 &ian/pacific Islander 0 Native AmericadAlaska Native 
0 Caucasian Other 0 
12. Who are you here with today? 
0 Alone 0 Adults w/child(ren) 
0 One other adult 
0 Several adults 
0 Child(ren) 0 School group 
0 Adult w/child(ren) 
0 Group of teens 
0 Tour group 
13. What is t h e m  reason you visited the Hirshhorn today? 
0 Recommendation: family/friend 
0 Brought out-of-town guest 
0 Came with family/friend 
0 Tour/school group 
0 Shop 
0 Reputation 0 Sculpture Garden 
0 Wandered by 
Other/specific 
0 Castle/SI info 
0 SI Magazine 
0 Newspaper 
0 Interest in modem art 
0 Interest in art (general) 
0 Repeat visit 
Now, in this part of the interview, I'd like to talk to you about a 
painting. So I don't have to take notes, I am going to use a tape 
recorder ifthat is okay with you: [TURN ON RECORDER] 
This is a painting by Richard Lindner. Have you seen 
it before? 0 Yes 0 No [Begh 'painting' questions] 
Reason for refusalheiig. STATUS: 
0 Interview 
0 SI staff/contractor 
0 Ineligible 
0 Refusal: Language 
0 Refusal: Other 
Session Segment Shift Type of Int. 
0 1 0 11:oO-12:30 0 Entry 
O2 0 0 Exit 
0 3  
0 4  0200-3:30 ocontrol 
I O 5  0. 0 6  
-33- 

Card for question number 6 
a, I am a professional in the arts, 
be I am an artist, 
c, I am considering a career or degree in the arts, 
do I create art for my own enjoyment, but I am not 
a professional artist. 
e, I am an art collector, 
f, I regularly read books/magazines about art, 
g. My friends consider me an art enthusiast, 
h, I have a general interest in art, 
-34-