Wednesday, December 01, 2021
Immersive Exhibit offers wall-to-wall-to-wall-to-wall Van Gogh in Pittsburgh’s North Side
Visual Art | Pittsburgh | Pittsburgh City Paper: The key word is “experience.” The Immersive Van Gogh Exhibit is not an exhibition of paintings, but a 35-minute “immersive digital art experience,” designed by Massimiliano Siccardi with a significant assist from Dutch painter Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890). In a repurposed warehouse on the North Side, visitors stand or sit in a darkened room while a steady stream of digitally projected images drawn from dozens of Van Gogh paintings unfold across a seamless four-walled screen and the floor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I really appreciated the commentary in this article. I actually did go see the Exhibit in Pittsburgh last week. I believe that my comment was, that you would really have to understand the art form and projection techniques to appreciate this exhibit. That being said, to answer the question at the end of the article, I don’t personally believe that it was worth $60 a pop. I think it was a cool experience but it was content that played for 30 minutes and then repeated on a loop. The atmosphere seemed very money driven, if that makes sense. More about Money than about the art of it. I am glad I went and I was entertained but I don’t think that this is something that I would choose to do again for that price. I also thought that it was going to be more than just one room. Trying to find the beginning and the end of the content was mesmerizing but the whole thing felt stagnant and confined to me.
Reading about this immersive exhibit really makes me want to visit it. I do not know much about Vincent Van Gogh but the "Starry Night" has always been one of my favorite paintings. Maybe because it seems whimsical to me (how ironic as it seems like Van Gogh was not trying for that}. Maybe even hopeful.
That is why the fact that there is a chance to be in a place and just be surrounded by this painting, and several other of Van Gogh's painting makes me so happy. I can only imagine his work, combined with the genius of technology, is an impeccable idea. The curator of this exhibit seems to have done a great job. The article has been written in such a positive light that even if there were pitfalls in this exhibit, I would not have thought of them as I would have entered the exhibit.
When I first saw the advertisements for this exhibit, I was very interested. I enjoy Van Gogh's imagery and I figured this would be a cool experience. I did not ever end up going, but from what I have heard from friends who have gone, it was a fairly underwhelming experience. I do not think there was anything particularly groundbreaking about this exhibit. While a room full of Van Gogh projections sounds pretty neat, I do not think it would be worth sixty dollar to stand in it, especially when (judging by the photos I have seen all over the Internet) it does not feel particularly immersive or engaging. I think there is a lot of potential for the idea of immersive Van Gogh. A better example would be that Airbnb room that garnered a lot of attention for being decorated like one of Van Gogh's painting(s), Bedroom in Arles.
One of the things that first got me interested in theatre was how you can be so experimental with it. The van gogh theatre that was mentioned in the article was one of those things that caught my eye because it sort of reminded me of the pandemic style of theatre. I think during the pandemic, the industry often questioned whether theatre can be as immersive an experience as live. However, I believe that new tech like these shows that it is possible. As the landscape of the world changes, there has to be new ways to use theatre to tell these ever changing stories.
Additionally, I want to note the use of lighting in these museums. I think I never really thought about lighting too much when I think about sets, but I think it is something that really pulls everything together when it comes to theatre making. Light really transforms the mood and the space and it is often one of the first things one notices. I think it is cool that there are so many different ways to light something, even though it is such a seemingly natural thing.
I remember seeing this Van Gogh exhibit in Milwaukee this summer and being sort of disappointed in it. I think the experience itself was pretty interesting, but the fact that the experience was pretty much secluded to one room, and the immersive experience was only projections and music. It was definitely cool to see how they turned his works into full room animations and moving parts, but it definitely was not worth how expensive it was. I think projections definitely have their uses and when used well can really add to the experience, but personally I often get tired when the only thing being used is projections. Especially since when I think of immersive experiences I tend to think of physical pieces that also help to bring you into the world of whatever you’re seeing. If it was more like a museum exhibit that had reconstructions of parts of his pieces but painted in his style, I think that would’ve been far more immersive. I don’t think I would go see it again unless the tickets were coonsiderably less expensive.
This article asks a lot of important questions that I have also considered about this installation. I definitely want to get to see it at some point just to see what all the hype is about but definitely not more than once. We were talking about this event in one of my classes a couple of weeks ago. Apparently they actually don’t make their money off of ticket sales, they get the majority of their profits from selling the merchandise in the gift shop. I can’t remember the specific number per week, but the sales from merchandise is ridiculously more than their ticket sales. I also hear the question of “Is this doing Van Gogh justice?” I’m not really sure how I feel about that. I am certainly not any kind of art expert, so I can’t really say, but I am not sure this work has to be celebrated as if it is some homage to Van Gogh himself. I feel like this is something completely separate and beautiful created by projections and media designs that should be appreciated in that respect.
I had the pleasure of being able to see this exhibit and I did really enjoy it. I wasn’t sure what exactly we were getting into because I hadn’t purchased the tickets so I hadn’t actually read about the event. I assumed that it would be a bunch of different “immersive” exhibits using touchscreens and technology like that. It really was more of a movie that was covering all four walls and the floor of a big room tacking together different pieces of Van Gogh’s painting to wonderful music. This is a traveling show and I assume the company has done this before and I know they're planning on doing it again with different artists. It was cool, but the only beef I had was the price tag. Maybe I’m cheap, but it felt like $50 for a half our in a room with projectors (albeit expensive ones) was a little out of scope being more than a dollar a minute for the 50 some odd people in the room at any given time. My only hope is that all the people who work on it both local and artistic are paid good wages from the money. And there was also a gift shop.
Post a Comment