In recent years, it has become common to have video exhibits in museums as a form of art; these videos include different works from multiple artists. The videos in exhibits tend to have many visitors waiting around a wall or behind a curtain just to see a film playing. Once you enter, you have to watch the full length, or else you’ll miss a part of the art. A problem arises because not everyone has time to watch a video, or they are on a time limit and still want to take a look at other art in the museum. These exhibits have to change their way of presenting this type of art, or stop presenting it completely. Videos in exhibits do not attract much attention, including to people like me. They do not compare to physical art or art that you can interact with. Additionally, individuals find that it is difficult to time the beginning of a video, leading to some gaps in the story if not fully watched.

Highlighting how one particular museum implements both video and physical arts, Herald-Tribune mentions how the Sarasota Art Museum has both videos and visual art, allowing visitors to enjoy both. Some of their videos show the cycle of organic time made by Janet Biggs and Peter Campus. Janet Biggs explains how she aims to showcase the art of nature and its impact on climate change. Peter Campus showcases his art through a time lapse of various locations around the world. Both of them collaborated on a piece of art for over a year. Their art consists of two screens, with one on the right and the other on the left, both showing their art combined. Marty Fugate says that, as a reviewer for films, a graphic designer, and someone known for experience in producing films himself and doing voice overs, professional producers aim for strong, simple images, and the videos made by collaborated artists Janet and Peter do not achieve that criterion. They mention that the video does include strong images, but it is unsatisfying how the images continue to constantly change and require you to pay heavy attention to the video, along with the message included.

Art projected through a video catches less attention from people in museums and galleries. People do not always stop to watch a piece of art projected through technology. ResearchGate.net performed a study on how many people would stop by to see a video. 45 videos in different museums averaged an attraction rate of 32%, meaning only one third of visitors stopped and were willing to watch. This study shows that videos in museums are not effective at capturing visitors’ attention and have a lower attraction rate, considering that an attraction rate of more than 60% is an exceptional amount, which is about double the amount of 32%. The 45 videos also averaged a holding power of .39, which meant the number of people who watched were there for less than half of the video’s length. The amount of holding power from these videos was less than the exceptional amount which is .70. Even though these numbers are low, it can be increased by having a better environment, for example, adding comfortable seating, providing food, or increasing the space inside, but this can be challenging knowing that even though a video attracts more viewers, it does not mean they will always be willing to stay due to their urge of wanting to move on to the next exhibit element. These results have been improved to an amount over .50 by motivating the audience to stay longer by adding messages in videos that indicate the viewer to stay, but this still does not mean they stayed the full time watching the video.

A study was conducted to identify how museum videos can be engaging during COVID. NIH.gov, also known as the National Institutes of Health, mentioned that a science museum established by the government, named “Science Center”, had 197 exhibits with a variety of educational programs and cultural events for youths. When the pandemic started, the museum started including all its resources online on platforms like YouTube. The study included many visitors and their responses to this new way of presenting information, but the responses were not particularly positive. One of the Science Center educators talked about how the early version of the YouTube videos was not interesting even to her. Another research was done in a renowned museum with a virtual reality experience and a physical traditional experience. The virtual experience still had fewer visitors, and the physical experience was more engaging and tended to attract more visitors.

Even though videos in museums seem to not have a big audience compared to physical museums, it does not mean that there is no space for improvement like having improved seating, having a better quality during their videos shown, or even shortening their videos to have visitors stay longer or maybe the full time. However, this still does not mean it is still better than being able to look at the details of a historical or expressive piece of art in person instead of not having a clearer vision through a video.