"Immersive Art Experience"

[Bartc]

Lotta that goin' 'round!

Article here in the New Yorker (long) about this trend and more if you have the time: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-rise-and-rise-of-immersive-art

I remember these kinds of things before this trend. In Les Baux in Provence in a cave with wall projections, or even the French penchant for Son et Lumieres shows projected on castles and the like. Then there were the light shows back in the 60s/70s. So what makes this different?

Commercialization on a large profit-making scale is what, IMHO. The answer to why these are proliferating is PROFIT. If they weren't selling, they would die off. And why are they selling so well? Maybe it's the fun of it without the sense much of the public gets that art in galleries and museums is static and even "stuffy", art they can't really "understand" on their own terms. Or maybe it's simply that the 3D experience itself grabs people in ways that 2D doesn't. Or maybe it's just that this is the "movie version" of the book.

For my money, I won't pay for these things. I actually do prefer to visit a Van Gogh and see it in the 2D mode in which it was developed in a contemplative environment. In other words, I'm actually old and stodgy! LOL

 

[AES]

The one in that article actually sounds pretty cool. It's actualmy immersive, with the images/projections reacting to the people around it. Like a VR game without the helmet.

I agree that the rehashing old masters works into giant projections does sound kinda lame though, especially without a few originals or something else of note to flesh it out.

There was one of those in my city recently but I missed it Might have gone if it wasn't too expensive, just to see.

 

[chaffee2]

We went to one of the two "competing" immersive Van Gogh exhibits in Boston, I was underwhelmed. The VR goggles were totally new to me, so that was a neat way to view an interpretation of what it might have been like then. The large room with images swirling, flowing and morphing all around was OK. To me there was a real feeling of cattle moving along a path.
I must say that I, too, really enjoy the traditional museum experience. I like the feeling that I can stop and study or ponder...

 

[Bartc]

If you examined a master painting under a microscope you would certainly see a level of detail that isn't normally visible. But you would NOT see what the artist saw, nor would you have any greater insight into what he visualized when painting - at least, that's my opinion of it.
Yes, I see immersive interactive digital experiences for their artistic merit, but those are distinctly different from those immersive Van Gogh experiences, IMO.
I am not at all against video or digital or other creative ways of expression and appreciate some of the works in those media, BTW. But a giant sized Rembrandt walking around in a warehouse is not what I think of when I want to see his genius.
However, the general public obviously thinks otherwise. And as long as they are willing to pay for that, that's what we'll see more of. More's the pity for more traditional art forms and the way we have always experienced those.

 

[P. Barrie]

I knew a very good painter that made a piece he called “The Muse”. The focal point was an older type TV with the glow of operation in a dimly lit artists studio. Kinda says it in a way.