10.57647/j.ccd.2025.0803.17

How the Enigmatic Architectural Components of Museums Affect the Perception of Audiences in Different Age Groups

PDF
  • Shima Pourrahimi1,
  • Reza Oryani Nezhad*1,
  1. Department of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan Branch, Hamedan, Iran

Received: 2024-03-10

Revised: 2024-06-15

Accepted: 2024-08-24

Published in Issue 2025-09-30

Copyright (c) 2025 Shima Pourrahimi, Reza Oryani Nezhad (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Pourrahimi, S., & Oryani Nezhad, R. (2025). How the Enigmatic Architectural Components of Museums Affect the Perception of Audiences in Different Age Groups. Creative City Design, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.57647/j.ccd.2025.0803.17
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 33

Abstract

Aims

Museums communicate cultural evolution through spatial experience, yet contemporary museum architecture often underplays audience engagement. This study examines how enigmatic architectural components (lighting, color, message flow, signs, navigation, text/scripts, labels/panels, display cases, and graphics) affect audience perception across age groups at the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art (TMoCA).

 Methodology

A structured questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale was administered to 373 visitors, sampled by age clusters (20-40, 40-60, 60-80). Internal consistency was verified (Cronbach’s α = 0.726, 9 variables). Data were analyzed in SPSS using descriptive indices and fit/contribution indicators reported as R², β, t, and F.

 Findings

For ages 20-40, the highest contribution relates to message flow ; for 40-60, text/scripts contribute most; and for 60–80, graphics dominate. Navigation consistently shows lower contributions relative to other components.

 Conclusion

Audience sensitivity to architectural-environmental cues is age-dependent at TMoCA. Designers should prioritize narrative flow for younger adults, plain and legible texts for middle-aged visitors, and strong, accessible graphics for older adults; wayfinding requires targeted improvement across cohorts.

Keywords

  • Enigmatic Architecture,
  • Audience Perception,
  • Message Flow,
  • Wayfinding,
  • Exhibition Design
PDF

References

  1. Hart A, Moore GT. The development of spatial configuration: a review. In: Downs R, Stea D, editors. Image and Environment. Chicago: Aldine; 1973.
  2. Ajjali P. An introduction to the theory of mass communication. Tehran: Media Studies and Planning Office Publications; 2009.
  3. Kaplan S. Adaptation, structure, and knowledge. In: Moore GT, Golledge RG, editors. Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research, and Methods. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross; 1976. p. 32–45.
  4. Dehghan S. Explaining the characteristics of the environmental graphics of museums to optimize museum space in Iran (case of the Museum of Ancient Iran) [master’s thesis]. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University, Faculty of Arts; 2012.
  5. McQuail D. Audience Studies. Tehran: Media Studies and Research Center, Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance; 2008.
  6. Haq SU. Complex architectural setting: an investigation of spatial and cognitive variables through wayfinding behavior [Ph.D. thesis]. Atlanta (GA): Georgia Institute of Technology; 2001.
  7. Hormuz M. Introduction to theories and concepts of mass communication. Tehran: Faran Publications; 2001.
  8. Belcher M. Exhibitions in Museums. London: Leicester University Press; 1991.
  9. Kaplan FES. Exhibitions as communicative media. In: Hooper-Greenhill E, editor. Museum, Media, Message. London: Routledge; 1999. p. 37–57.
  10. Fen TSA. The integration of new media technologies into the wayfinding system of a museum environment [Ph.D. thesis]. Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology; 2010.
  11. Klatzky RL. Representing spatial location and layout from sparse kinesthetic contacts. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003;29:310–325.
  12. Golledge RG. Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press; 1999.
  13. Lord B, Lord GD. The Manual of Museum Exhibitions. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira Press; 2002.
  14. Krautler H. Observations on semiotic aspects in the museum work of Otto Neurath: reflections on the ‘Bildpädagogische Schriften’. In: Hooper-Greenhill E, editor. Museum, Media, Message. London: Routledge; 1999. p. 59–69.
  15. Gilmore E, Sabine J. Writing readable text: evaluation of the Ekarv method. In: Hooper-Greenhill E, editor. The Educational Role of the Museum. London: Routledge; 1999. p. 205–211.
  16. Durbin G. Developing Museum Exhibitions for Lifelong Learning. London: The Stationery Office; 1996.
  17. Jones PJ. Communicating and learning in Gallery 33: evidence from a visitor study. In: Hooper-Greenhill E, editor. Museum, Media, Message. London: Routledge; 2001. p. 261–273.
  18. Bedno J, Bedno E. Museum exhibitions: past imperfect, future tense. Museum News. 1999;78(5):38–43.
  19. Carliner S. Lessons learned from museum exhibit design. 2001.
  20. Weisman O. Evaluating architectural legibility: wayfinding in the built environment. Environ Behav. 1981;13(2):189–204.
  21. Passini R, Arthur P. Wayfinding: People, Signs, and Architecture. London: Focus Strategic Communications; 2002.
  22. Klonk C. Spaces of Experience: Art Gallery Interiors from 1800 to 2000. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press; 2009.
  23. Ghobishavi A, Babli A. Designing the interior architecture of Abadan Museum with the approach of creating identity and inspiration from traditional architecture. In: 7th National Conference on Architecture, Urban Planning and Tourism: Applied Researches and New Solutions; 2023. p. 1–14.
  24. Rahimi Mehr V, Taheri M. Museum design criteria with traditional architecture approach. In: 8th Annual International Congress on Civil, Architecture and Urban Development; 2023. p. 1–14.
  25. Pirzadi M, Alaei A. Examining the role of ambiguity in architecture. In: The 4th International Conference on New Horizons in Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Planning; 2018. p. 1–8.
  26. Pirbabai MT, Anuri MR. Mystery and ambiguity in Islamic architecture. In: The 2nd National Conference on Islamic Architecture and Urban Planning; 2012. p. 1–11.
  27. Macleod S. Museum Making: Narratives, Architectures, and Exhibitions. London: Routledge; 2012.
  28. Gall MD, Gall JP, Walter RB. Educational Research: An Introduction. 7th ed. Boston (MA): Allyn & Bacon; 2003.
  29. Kratz CA. Rhetorics of value: constituting worth and meaning through cultural display. Vis Anthropol Rev. 2011;27(1):21–48. doi:10.1111/j.1548-7458.2011.01077.x.
  30. Sandifer C. Technological novelty and open-endedness: two characteristics of interactive exhibits that contribute to the holding of visitor attention in a science museum. J Res Sci Teach. 2003;40(2):121–137. doi:10.1002/tea.10069.
  31. Nikseresht MZ, Saeidi Mofrad S, Daneshvar M, Hanaee T. Age differences in spatial route-finding ability of tourists: a case study of Imam Reza Shrine. Creative City Design. 2025;8(2). doi:10.57647/j.ccd.2025.0802.09.
  32. Shams VM, Rezvani A, Mirzavaziri M. Spatial organization analysis of the historical and contemporary houses in Mashhad by using the space syntax method. Creative City Design. 2021;4(3):101–116.