Immersive Van Gogh Has Upsides and Downsides, Explains Art Prof
April 16, 2021
- Author
- Jay Pfeifer
"Van Gogh's Starry Night" by Christopher S. Penn is licensed under CC BY 2.0
During a trip to Paris a few years ago, Art Professor C. Shaw Smith visited LAtelier des Lumiéres, a cavernous space that pioneered projecting the works of legendary artists in massive, high-resolution formats.
Smiths timing was perfect; he used the experience to close the final chapter of the textbook he was working onPalimpsests of Patrimony: A Concise History of Art and Architecture in Franceand now, the installations he viewed in France are touring North America.
, and 13 other American cities, in June. The Charlotte installation will be set up in Camp North End, a one-time Ford plant, from June 17 through Sept. 12.
But how does such a modern presentation square with Van Goghs actual work? The Starry Night, one of Van Goghs most recognizable masterpieces measures only 30 inches by 36 inches when seen in person at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. The Immersive Van Gogh installation will reproduce Van Goghs paintings across 300,000 cubic feetwith added animation.
Smith, the Joel O. Conarroe Professor of Art, shares his thoughts.
What was your reaction to the exhibit you saw in France?
It is spectacular. Its kind of like Mercedes Stadium in Atlanta. Its almost dizzying. Youre overwhelmed by the technology.
As a purist of these things, it does upset me a little bit.
The images are 20 feet high and, of course, the real paintings are not that big. The danger is that society focuses on the simulated experience. It is spectacular, but it can take the place of the original. It can manipulate that reality.
Does this immersive presentation distort the experience?
It goes both ways. You lose scale in the simulation. I cant tell you how many students Ive had who would say, I didnt realize you could see the brushstrokes after seeing one of Van Goghs paintings in person. And thats really whats essential.
In the original works, what youre really talking about is the hand. In this case, youre talking about the eye. The immersive presentation is a way to create accessibility and the spectacle. It has very little to do with the art itself.
The simulation animates his paintings, too; you can see his famous sunflowers grow, so it plays with things that are well beyond the scope of the painting. A purist would say thats bad. One side of me agrees. On the other side, I see it as popularizing.
Immersive Van Gogh Exhibit by Michael Brosilow
Technology, however, has always shaped how art is viewed. There was a time when photographs were novel as well, right?
Art history as we know it today would not exist if we didnt have simulacra like the Immersive Van Gogh exhibit. Until about the early 20th century, art history was limited to rich, white, aristocratic people because there werent replicas. You had to travel to see the art. Who collects art and who gets to see it is constantly changing.
This is especially true in America. The discipline of art history was built on having access to reproductions. There was little art in Americathats changed, obviouslyand you had to travel to museums.
When I first started grad school in the mid-1970s, there were still teachers who would not show you colored reproductions of paintings. They would show you a black and white one because they didnt want to show you an imperfect impression. Now, color reproduction has improved so much, you can get much closer. But its never the same [as the original].
How do you separate Van Goghs work with its ubiquity? Weve seen his painting so many times, in so many contexts.
Whenever I teach DaVinci and the Mona Lisa, one of the things I always say is that you cant see the Mona Lisa anymore. And thats because youve seen it so many timeson t-shirts, mouse pads and commercials. Youre looking through all that stuff that filters in and changes your expectations for when you see the painting. If you go see it at the Louvre, it can be a downer because its not slick. Its a painting of a Florentine woman.
Its almost as if theres a halo around the originalyoure looking through all these versions of it, and youre supposed to be in awe of its originality.
Whats one thing that is present in the original that even a spectacular reproduction of a Van Gogh will not show you?
Even really good photographs dont show the brush strokes. Theres a ridge thats created by the paint itself; he would use this very heavy impasto technique. You can see the brush strokes in relief. If you put a light on either side of the painting, you would see shadows created by the relief of the paint texture.
You dont see that in the exhibits images, as I recall. The sense of the human being who created the painting is diminished.
