Immersive art experiences, from floor-to-ceiling animated paintings to giant fluorescent ball pits, have proliferated in warehouses and often cost £25-40 per person. Now experts claim that most of these are overpriced gimmicks.
Leading digital artists have argued that some of the most popular commercial immersive experiences, particularly those based on the works of deceased artists such as Van Gogh and Dalí, are a money grab that provides visitors with little reward beyond Instagrammable moments.
Artists have argued that the proliferation of these shows, which often use relatively old technology, has undermined public perception of what immersive experiences can be and that more innovative works risk being sidelined.
Designer and digital artist Lucy Hardcastle, who runs her own studio in London, said the commercialization of immersive experiences leaves no room for many original ideas.
Hardcastle, who has produced work for the Victoria and Albert Museum and Chanel, drew a distinction between commercial experiences that rely primarily on screen or projection, such as the Van Gogh, Monet and Dalí exhibitions, and more modern shows put on by artists. We created physical and digital environments from scratch.
For example, work by DRIFT studio, run by Dutch artists, involves creating a suite of autonomously moving, light-up drones that are programmed to fly using an algorithm derived from years of research on starling murmurations. Post-digital art group Random International created the Rain Room, where visitors enter torrential rain without getting wet, attracting tens of thousands of visitors to the Barbican and New York’s Museum of Modern Art. Such projects often take years to develop.
In contrast, some of the most popular commercial experiences to open since these pioneering shows have primarily used projection mapping (in which screens are projected onto real-world objects or spaces to simulate environments or augment reality) that they did not create themselves, dating back to the 1900s. 1990s.
“I think things like the Van Gogh experience and that price point definitely skew the perception of craftsmanship at these types of events,” said Hardcastle, who also teaches at Chelsea School of Art.
Hardcastle said he thought the word immersive had become a “deceptive slogan.” While it was once associated with shows that stimulated all the senses, it was now more about creating something that looked good on Instagram.
“It’s almost like our expectations or standards keep falling [by these experiences]. So there is less demand to do something truly extraordinary.”
Ralph Nauta, co-founder of studio DRIFT, said it’s relatively easy to make a mirrored animation of a dead artist’s work for commercial ventures. But his own projects, such as Drifter, which involves a floating concrete block, required years of original research. ‘Physically and by the laws of nature, having a block of concrete means 15 years of work for that single piece,’ he said.
Nauta described popular screen-based immersive experiences as a “money grab” and argued that they do not provide consideration or value to the viewer. “The visitor walks out and feels: Oh, I’m $50 lighter, but I haven’t experienced anything, I’ve just been put in front of a screen.”
He also questioned whether dead artists whose works have been transformed into immersive experiences would approve of the way their works are displayed. “It’s like, oh, we’re doing a Van Gogh show, we’re doing a Dalí show. No one knows if he wants this or not. “I think that’s very disrespectful.”
“This gives the entire industry a bad name and could be much, much more.”
Artists said the industry needed organizations like London’s Serpentine and arebyte galleries that support emerging artists working with immersive technology.
Claudel Goy, chief executive of arebyte, said the proliferation of commercial shows such as the Van Gogh experience is attracting new audiences to immersive art and raising its public profile. However, he said there is a need for public institutions to support further studies.
Prices for commercial immersive experiences reflect the high expense of the technology and the cost of space in prime locations in cities such as London, Goy said. Arebyte hopes to open an immersive art museum in east London, with ticketed exhibitions costing up to £15. He said: “We certainly won’t be charging £25. Who can afford this? As a family of four [that’s] £100 – that is completely out of reach.”
Hannes Koch, co-founder of Dutch Random International, said artist-led immersive displays cannot compete with their more commercial counterparts because creating something bespoke is much more complex than using large screens.
He said the ideal price point for immersive experiences was between £8 and £15. “I don’t think it’s a crime to charge for something high quality. But I think it’s good to keep accessibility high on the radar.”
Sana Ali Aamir, UK managing director of Fever, the company behind Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience, defended the pricing of its most popular exhibitions, saying it helped fund the development of other newer, more innovative exhibitions such as those below. Dopamine Land and Bubble Planet cost around £15-20.
While the technology in the Van Gogh experience is now outdated, the storytelling in the experience, which takes visitors inside some of Van Gogh’s most famous paintings through two-story, 360-degree digital projections, is still powerful and valuable, he said. money. He added that this is likely a richer way to experience his work as viewers learn more about the artist.
He added: “The value is in taking that innovation and turning it into something more accessible. There’s something for everyone in this market. You can then use those expensive things to move towards more affordable things, which means providing access to more people and cultures.”