鈥業mmersive Van Gogh鈥 Has Upsides and Downsides, Explains Art Prof
"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 L鈥橝telier des Lumi茅res, a cavernous space that pioneered projecting the works of legendary artists in massive, high-resolution formats.
Smith鈥檚 timing was perfect; he used the experience to close the final chapter of the textbook he was working on鈥Palimpsests of Patrimony: A Concise History of Art and Architecture in France鈥攁nd 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 Gogh鈥檚 actual work? 鈥淭he Starry Night,鈥 one of Van Gogh鈥檚 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 Gogh鈥檚 paintings across 300,000 cubic feet鈥攚ith 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. It鈥檚 kind of like Mercedes Stadium in Atlanta. It鈥檚 almost dizzying. You鈥檙e 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 can鈥檛 tell you how many students I鈥檝e had who would say, 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 realize you could see the brushstrokes鈥 after seeing one of Van Gogh鈥檚 paintings in person. And that鈥檚 really what鈥檚 essential.
In the original works, what you鈥檙e really talking about is the hand. In this case, you鈥檙e 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 that鈥檚 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 didn鈥檛 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 weren鈥檛 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 America鈥攖hat鈥檚 changed, obviously鈥攁nd 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 didn鈥檛 want to show you an imperfect impression. Now, color reproduction has improved so much, you can get much closer. But it鈥檚 never the same [as the original].
How do you separate Van Gogh鈥檚 work with its ubiquity? We鈥檝e seen his painting so many times, in so many contexts.
Whenever I teach DaVinci and the 鈥淢ona Lisa,鈥 one of the things I always say is that you can鈥檛 see the 鈥淢ona Lisa鈥 anymore. And that鈥檚 because you鈥檝e seen it so many times鈥攐n t-shirts, mouse pads and commercials. You鈥檙e 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 it鈥檚 not slick. It鈥檚 a painting of a Florentine woman.
It鈥檚 almost as if there鈥檚 a halo around the original鈥攜ou鈥檙e looking through all these versions of it, and you鈥檙e supposed to be in awe of its originality.
What鈥檚 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 don鈥檛 show the brush strokes. There鈥檚 a ridge that鈥檚 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 don鈥檛 see that in the exhibit鈥檚 images, as I recall. The sense of the human being who created the painting is diminished.