Axios: Will the real Vincent Van Gogh please stand up? "Immersive Van Gogh" is coming to Orlando this fall. It's not the same as "Van Gogh Alive" at the Dalí Museum in St. Petersburg. And definitely not "Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience" coming to Miami.
11 comments:
There are way more of these exhibits than listed in this article. There’s even one in Pittsburgh that I saw a billboard for. It is kind of sad and away because van Gogh himself never sold a single painting in his lifetime and yet all of these exhibits are ripping off his artwork. It is legal because it has passed the period of time needed for it to be legally reproduced. I wouldn’t mind going to an exhibit like this because I think it would be a cool new way to view his art. I might end up checking out the one in Pittsburgh to see what it is like. I agreed with the comment made about this experience being like a 4D Shrek experience at universal studios and I think that’s the vibe that I would get if I went. It seems kind of cheesy to enhance the experience with smells and 3-D render renderings of his paintings.
I saw the Van Gogh exhibit in St Petersburg, FL over winter break and was honestly a little let down. There's been so much collective hype over all the different Van Gogh touring "immersive experiences" that I came into the exhibit expecting to be wowed and blown away. Instead, I found the entire experience to be lacking and I came out feeling anxious and disappointed. The exhibit was divided into two smaller rooms and one large room, where the bulk of the experience was meant to take place. In the first two rooms, the 4 walls and a panel in the center of the floor were projected upon so you had to walk around the perimeter of the room. The problem was that there was no indication of when you should be moving along, so it ended up getting bottlenecked and backed up. The main room was cool, but I think that I expected more dynamic movement than was actually shown.
I knew there were at least two Van Gogh exhibits making their way around the country/world but certainly not five! This certainly raises some interesting questions in my mind about these sorts of exhibits and how exclusive and aggressive they can get with one another. No matter how the experiences are presented, they are all going to revolve around the same works created by Van Gogh, who has been dead for over 130 years. Who gets to say who can use his works? On one hand, it is nice that there are several different tours and experiences to reach a wider audience, but when it starts becoming a battle of selling tickets at higher prices, piggybacking off the success of others – I don’t really like that as much. Especially with these exhibits. It seems like some of these companies are blatantly copying the others and charging more just to grab some extra cash. Capitalizing off of the success of others by stealing their work. This is such a major problem in many different things, and evidently it is becoming a problem in immersive art exhbitions.
I actually bought tickets to one of these for next semester although after looking at the titles of all the experiences, I'm not sure which. Hopefully, it isn't the same one Bridget went to see and was disappointed with. That would be a bit of a waste and a letdown to find out it's not that good after having already bought the fairly expensive tickets. One thing that really surprised me about the ticketing is that if didn't seem as if it was about time of day rather than the experience itself. I guess that's not the most crazy since it functions similarly with matinees. I'm curious why all these exhibits are coming out at the same time. You would expect them to stagger their performances to try and maximize profits. Even if the showing of Immersive Van Gogh on the tv show Emily in Paris I feel like scheduling over other similar events is just sketchy business practice.
Last week I had the chance to the read the article about Van Gogh experience and what it was trying to accomplish, which is what originally drew me into reading this article. I think we can look at this as an example of the odd way that artists create things. Sometimes copies of certain things just happen. Not necessarily because it was an intentional thing, but because of two or more people finding inspiration to do the same thing at around the same time. This situation reminds me a lot of the age-old “Bug’s Life” and “Antz” situation. Two movies scheduled to come out in the same year, with the same premise down to the character tropes and ideas. One would be copying the other, depending on the release date and learning which one was developed first. At the end of the day, one greatly overshadowed the other, but the point stands that sometimes things happen at the wrong time.
I had no there were this many Van Gogh experiences happening in the world right now. I keep seeing facebook ads for the ones that are happening in my area and thought "huh this looks interesting I should check it out" without much of an opinion on Van Gogh. I thought it would be a good experience to just check out cool art but also perhaps learn something about van gogh in a fun way. I have not bought tickets yet so perhaps I should hold off and wait to see what these experiences are like before I buy a ticket. I am also really sused out about the fact there are so many immersive experiences all popping up at the same time. I feel like that has to be at least a little weird and worthy of questioning because what are the odds that so many companies want to do something about van gogh at the same time and on top of that are doing it in the same medium. I am also really excited to see more immersive experiences going forward but I can not help but feel a little icky that other people are profiting off of Van Gogh's art when he did not profit himself.
It's all about money. It's always about where the money is coming from, where the money is going, who has control of the money, who doesn't have the money, who is paying for the experience, what experience you are paying for, how your money could have been better spent, if you got ripped off or made the right decision, and so on. It's more about worrying about how money plays into the experience rather than the experience itself (but that's life, kinda a sad way to approach it but it pretty true) I'll just say that the next time you spend your money on going to an installation stop questioning whether the $5 extra dollars you spent on the admission is a waste. Just that thought and time stressing to evaluate rather than look at the installation. You just paid for it, learn something from that experience. Spend your time worrying about being in the present and just learning from what goes on. It's hard to disconnect from stressing about whether you are getting scammed or not but spending your time stressed about that rather than just enjoying the experience is a waste of your time and energy. Learn from life rather than stressing over how it could be better if you saved that extra $5-$10. Do something better with your life than be bitter (go make someone smile or donate your time)
I swear I think I’ve seen advertisements for a new Van Gogh experience coming to Pittsburgh in the fall on the side of the bus or something. I had no idea that there are also like five other exhibits currently doing the same thing. Honestly looking at the complete list, I don’t think I could tell you which one is even coming to Pittsburgh. I’m guessing it’s one with the word immersive but again I could be wrong. I’m really glad the author put a chart with all of the prices of the new immersive exhibits compared to seeing the real things. There’s just something off about the fact that all of the new “experiences” are prices more than actually seeing the real deal. I guess it’s a chance for people who can’t travel to Paris or Amsterdam to see it and learn more about Van Gogh, but still some are more than double the price.
I saw the ad for the local van Gogh experience here in Pittsburgh and I had no idea that it was such a far reaching thing. I did not know Rhiannon‘s comment that van Gogh did not sell a single piece of his artwork during his life and I wonder what he would think if he were do see this capitalization of his art all around the country especially since his painting sell at some of the most expensive prices in the world. What I wonder most is how companies are getting away with the capitalization of van Goghs art and really makes you think about the relationship between art and the audience.
I think that I’m going to see for myself if all the hope is for nothing this coming fall in Pittsburgh at the interactive Van Gogh exhibit.
I’m coming in with low expectations but hopefully it’s cool.
I find super niche competition like this honestly so entertaining and if you are removed from it, so funny. I am sure it is serious to the people within the business but as an outsider looking in, watching five businesses compete to be the best virtual reality-esque 4-D Van Gogh experience sounds ridiculous. It makes me wonder why specifically Van Gogh? I feel like if at least a couple of businesses changed their artist they could discover a new niche without the competitive aspect. It also makes me think about how Van Gogh as an artist could have never predicted 5 companies fighting to make the most successful immersive projection walk-through experience all based around his art. With this in mind, I wonder what other weird and funny scenarios like these will come from modern-day artists. Only time will tell. I am sure that no matter what company puts it together, the Van Gogh immersive experience is entertaining and interesting, and it is something I would be interested in seeing if it is ever somewhere accessible to me.
This is hilarious. I 100% believe this is happening because of the fair-use law. Would I care about which Van Gogh experience I saw? No. Which is probably why customers are having such an issue with all of these being proposed. They can’t tell if they SHOULD care about which one they attend, because there’s nothing explaining what makes these events different. Maybe they aren’t different, but the sheer number of them definitely makes me question it. While I appreciate being able to see art in person, I think being able to project high-quality recreations of the work is a better way to view the art. This way, you can better see the details and texture in every stroke of his paintbrush. The images can be made very large, so people don’t have to crane their necks to see. You can also manipulate the image to point out certain features to viewers, which certainly wouldn’t be possible with an original painting. I think this would make for a better educational experience. If I wanted to stroll through a museum and casually look at art, I would.
Post a Comment