Abstract

ABSTRACT

Multi-sensory and Kinetic Approaches to Installation Art in Outdoor Gardens: A Study of Expert and Non-expert Visitors

Manon Douesnard
Concordia University, 2013

Installation art is a mainstream and important contemporary art form. Yet installation art is often difficult for museum, gallery and festival visitors to comprehend. Installation art focuses on the multi-sensorial and physical engagement of the visitor. Therefore, it is impossible to access or fully appreciate such works through the use of sight alone. Multi-sensory and physical engagement may help provide new educational strategies relevant to installation art. This research examines art experts and non-experts in a series of three data gathering activities around an outdoor art installation at the International Garden Festival at the Reford Gardens in Métis, Québec, Canada. Video recordings of participants’ engagements with the outdoor installation work, interviews, and video elicitation activities provided rich insights into the participants’ experiences. They were used to compare the behaviors of expert and non-expert subjects. The findings of this study show that the senses of hearing, taste, smell and touch, as well as physical engagement were essential in order to fully appreciate and understand the installation work. They enhanced participants’ experience by providing aural, physical, orientational, spatial, imaginative and interpretative dimensions to expert and non-expert participants’ art experience. Differences between experts and non-experts focused on experts’ art training, kinetic compensatory activities and touch repression. The research also highlights the importance of participants’ previous knowledge and the value of taking time to explore. While video elicitation was originally intended only as a research procedure it proved to be a particularly valuable tool for both research and learning. As the research unfolded, it became clear that accepted definitions of expert and non-expert museum visitors did not adequately describe the participants’ responses in this study. Distinctions between my experts and non-experts were not as clearly demarcated as museum literature would suggest.