When some of my friends visited Amsterdam this summer, they eagerly shared their vivid experience of seeing images of Van Gogh’s paintings in the psychedelic aftermath of magic mushrooms. They were fascinated by the illusionary moving of the starry night and sunflowers, finding themselves melted in the fluid, transcendent visual experiences they had never had before.
Although I do not judge the intake of magic mushrooms at all, I was skeptical about their way of consuming artwork in general. I compared it with the blockbuster immersive Van Gogh exhibitions that were essentially nothing more than a light show and had no relevant or meaningful connection to Van Gogh at all. My friends unfortunately were not up for such an argument so we moved on after my attempt to passionately advocate that we should see art as it is. However, it was interesting to observe that my art-lover friends were apparently seeking immersive experiences with art, and I hence wondered where my intrinsic irritation about this came from.
One advantage of immersive art exhibitions is that they were considered a revolutionary approach to experiencing art, offering a multisensory journey that transcends traditional gallery visits. Just like my friends experienced, the ability to foster deep engagement between art and audience is compelling. Extensive digital technology is involved in such exhibitions. These technologies envelop visitors in a dynamic environment creating an interactive experience. But are these for-profit exhibitions really about art?
Take Immersive Van Gogh Exhibits as an example. Instead of showing Van Gogh’s work, the show was designed by Massimiliano Siccardi and Vittorio Guidotti, who specialized in digital elaboration and animation. Currently, once an artist has been dead for 70 years, their works become public domain. The immersive exhibition takes publicly available images and reproductions of Van Gogh’s paintings, uses digital elaboration and animation technology to enhance the colors, make images move and emerge with each other to create a sort of short film. The exhibition is typically set up in large gallery spaces, digital reproductions of the artist’s works are projected onto walls, ceilings, and floors, sometimes accompanied by animations, narrations, music, or fragrances. The show tells Van Gogh’s story with a loose stream of consciousness, using large images and animations to demonstrate what “flashed before his eyes before the artist died“. Virtual reality headsets are also involved in order to “take visitors through the artist’s experiences”.
With all the technological advancements, the exhibition turns into a spectacle where the artist becomes a mere reference, and perhaps even nothing more than an afterthought. The creators prioritize spectacle over substance and emphasize creating a visually stunning environment that overshadows the underlying message or meaning of the artwork. The storytelling of the life of Van Gogh has also been simplified to a one-dimensional narrative, in which he was not acknowledged and killed himself due to depression. It was shocking when I saw someone commenting on the show: “I was so disgusted by the immersive exhibit. The worst part for me was how hard they tried to convince you they had the best intentions in bringing awareness to Van Gogh’s tragic life. And then the gift shop at the end sold mugs with his face where the ear disappeared when it got hot”.
Visitors often focus more on capturing Instagram-worthy moments than on truly engaging with the art and the artist. Equipped with smartphones and accustomed to constant sharing, they eagerly document their experiences, often posting photos or videos online. This interconnected digital content can then be strategically selected by the immersive Van Gogh exhibition’s promotional teams and featured on their websites, co-creating value for event sponsors. These exhibitions align with the consumer-driven demands of the attention-experience economy, fueled by the profit motives of the exhibition organizers.
However, in my scientist friend’s view, as long as these events could have offered any artistic inspiration or influence to the masses, they could be valuable to society. The media and technology bring people closer to art. I think I can learn a lot from this optimism and open-mindedness.
Reference:
Mondloch, Kate. 2022. “The Influencers: Van Gogh Immersive Experiences and the Attention-Experience Economy” Arts 11, no. 5: 90. link
Recent Comments