Written by: Li

Edited by: Alexis

 Art, and the way we experience it, is changing.

Artists such as Vincent van Gogh, Pablo Picasso, and Claude Monet have left a lasting legacy on the world by revolutionizing art. But, with the rise of “immersive art” exhibits, their works are now being reduced to merchandise and media. 

These exhibits claim to “add new dimensions to familiar artworks by using technology such as projections and soundscapes” (The Artifice). But, rather than enhancing the artworks, immersive elements shift the focus on the visitors’ experience rather than the art itself. This superficial engagement with the art – only attending an exhibit to get something out of it, presumably social media clout – is bemoaned by critics as an “expression of a vain and self-centered generation” (The Artifice). In the words of Alex Fleming-Brown, a collaborator at Vice magazine, “immersive art” is a “lazy love child of TikTok and enterprising warehouse landlords.”

The pervasiveness of social media and the habit of plastering our lives across the internet have changed the human psyche and behavior. Our constant awareness of being observed (though through our own will) encourages a performative approach to everyday life, wherein we constantly aestheticize mundane chores and post them online to garner more attention. This phenomenon is evident in internet trends, in which celebrities and influencers directly influence their followers to adhere to fashion, language, and other trends for monetary gain or simply attention (The Artifice).

For instance, the popularity of immersive art exhibits, like “Immersive van Gogh,” is closely tied to their aesthetic appeal. These shows, showcased on platforms like Instagram, project a certain image of “cultural awareness” surrounding art and its history among individuals who share the experience, regardless of how aware the visitor truly is – it’s all about the image. In other words, the success of immersive exhibits is attributed to its appeal to teens and young adults who are drawn to vibrant and flashy posts on their social media feeds (The Crimson). Therefore, it is ironic that the largest audience for immersive shows are present online, where immersive features cannot be fully experienced. As a result, commercial curators prioritize the photogenic appeal rather than the experience itself, to cater to the online audience that drives ticket sales (Alex Fleming-Brown, Vice). 

Immersive exhibits also typically showcase ultra-popular pieces by revolutionary artists. But, the process of modernizing these well-known works into moving spectacles detaches them from their original meaning – decontextualizing them from the artists and the historical context of their works, including the subjects, techniques, and materials used (The Artifice). This poses the question: is the exhibition successful because people appreciate the art or simply recognize it? This harkens back to the fact that the popularity of these exhibits lies mostly in the promise of social media attention. 

Moreover, the immersive experience devalues the artist’s original vision (The Artifice). These “modern exhibits” lack preservation for the future compared to the original artworks and artists that continue to hold historical significance and inspire new creators globally. Static artwork continues to hold significance and meaning across generations, while projection shows, being inherently transient, exist solely for present gratification – offering no lasting impact for future generations (The Artifice). 

Perhaps at the heart of the issue isn’t just catering to a social media-centric generation but also the stripping of the original art’s “aura” and artist’s intent. Walter Benjamin, a 20th-century aesthetic and social philosopher, defined aura as that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction. Original art retains its aura, while “mechanical reproductions” of impressionist work lack this essence. The artist’s unique way of seeing is lost when their work is transposed into unconventional spaces (The Crimson). 

The Wisdom of Da Vinci, an immersive art gallery experience in BGC, uses various data sources and art history records to recreate AI-generated and coded art pieces (SPOT.ph). The exhibit, in addition to dynamic visuals, boasts the compelling music of the world-famous composer, Ludovico Einaudi, which, although beautiful, overshadows the engagement with the art pieces themselves, through the sheer emotional impact of the music – a form of “emotional contagion,” if you will (Manila Times, Lars-Olov Lundqvist et al.). 

This sensory overload caused by the many intersecting art forms within this exhibit, and others like it, is just one of the issues many critics have with the new, popular, “immersive art experiences.” By piling on various sensory experiences (music, moving visuals, lighting, etc.), interactive exhibitions imply that the traditionality of static art is “less than” when compared to the dynamic forms created by “immersive experiences,” bombarding viewers with constantly changing and moving artworks, so that it’s impossible to focus on one thing at a time. But, in reality, it is those who invest in self-proclaimed immersion that are deprived of the captivation that comes with staring at an unmoving painting. 

The experience of a “traditional” art gallery, where the works remain as they are, allows imagination and the engagement of one’s creativity, to bring the work to life, in addition to the artists’ skill. In other words, “adding a more sensational form of participation prevents viewers from engaging in a subtler, perhaps more rewarding form of immersion forged between individual viewers and static art… which draws upon the reader’s imagination to fill in the blanks left by the author” (The Artifice). While this engagement may be more nuanced than the immersion provided by extravagant technology, it cultivates a profound connection between the creator and the viewer.

While “immersive art” gallery experiences are, in many respects, a less effective means of interacting with art, they can be constructed in a way that genuinely engages visitors mentally and emotionally. For example, Alfredo Jaar’s Immersive Black Lives Matter Protest Piece transcends from being a mere recreation of past artists’ works. It offers a profoundly moving experience with a purpose to foster understanding and evoke empathy. The fusion of art and technology holds immense potential and will continue to evolve. However, the mission behind combining these two art forms must not be solely driven by the desire for social media attention. If it is, art risks losing its capacity to challenge the viewer. The concern arises that if all art becomes comfortable, our ability to grow and evolve may be hindered. It’s time for us to recognize that technology, although a welcome development in our world, doesn’t always make things better. 

Works Cited

“Are Immersive Exhibitions Ruining Art?” The-Artifice.com, the-artifice.com/immersive-art-exhibitions/.

Aug 2, Leana Vibal, and 2023. “LOOK: This Immersive Da Vinci AI Art Exhibit Is Now in Manila.” SPOT.PH, http://www.spot.ph/arts-culture/art-exhibits/105788/wisdom-of-da-vinci-ai-art-exhibit-in-bgc-first-look-a5138-20230802-lfrm.

Fleming, Alex. “Immersive Art Exhibitions Are Everywhere and They’re Awful.” Www.vice.com, http://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgngz/why-immersive-art-exhibitions-are-awful.

Lundqvist, Lars-Olov, et al. “Emotional Responses to Music: Experience, Expression, and Physiology.” Psychology of Music, vol. 37, no. 1, 12 Aug. 2008, pp. 61–90, https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607086048.

“Think Piece: Why Immersive Art Feels Wrong | Arts | the Harvard Crimson.” Www.thecrimson.com, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/8/why-immersive-art-feels-wrong-think-piece/. Accessed 11 May 2023.““Wisdom of Da Vinci” and the Journey of Art, Technology and Colors.” The Manila Times, 3 Sept. 2023, http://www.manilatimes.net/2023/09/03/the-sunday-times/arts-awake/wisdom-of-da-vinci-and-the-journey-of-art-technology-and-colors/1908274. Accessed 1 Oct. 2023.