The most important insight from my research, summed up in a single sentence? Exhibitions are radically fragmented. Think Swiss cheese—but reversed: more holes than cheese. Between showcase and showcase, object and object, object and text, room and room—gaps. Between reading, listening, reflecting, chatting, observing—breaks.
If we understand stories as “structures of meaning” (a brilliant definition!), then exhibitions are loosely woven tapestries of significance. Always.
Film, as a medium, can do both: flowing sequences and abrupt cuts. Exhibitions are more stubborn. By nature. Things (!) tend to stand next to rather than with one another.
This isn’t exactly a new insight. But in my observation, it’s still not taken seriously enough.
One reason: as curators, we’re deeply immersed in our topics. We know our exhibitions inside and out. So we make connections effortlessly. We know that a particular object in Room 1 is meant to relate to certain information later on. We unconsciously fill in any missing links.
This makes it difficult for us to truly see how massive the challenge is for visitors: to make those connections themselves. Not only because the content is often unfamiliar—but because they can’t know what’s coming in the next rooms. And once they get there, they’ve often forgotten what they saw, read, or heard before.
We see the cheese. The audience sees the holes.