Not Every Artist Needs An “Immersive Experience”

We live, supposedly, in the age of “experiences”; the term evokes the tired trope that millennials — the most indebted generation in history — value travel and ephemeral encounters over material goods. (The Rise of “Immersive” Art)

Influencer posing in the Immersive Van Gogh exhibition in Chicago. (Courtesy: @andrea_rustad on Instagram)

From Immersive Van Gogh to Immersive Monet, followed by Frida Kalo and Michaelangelo. Then, suddenly, the immersive experience becomes the new exhibition standard and probably isn’t going to stop until every nameable artist’s got their installation.

But is it worth it?

Let’s start with the simple fact that a 40-ft tall building or warehouse with art projected on the interior walls barely counts as an “immersive experience.” However, given the right equipment and technology, a grade-schooler could easily compile a timed PowerPoint and possibly build a far more exciting immersive exhibition. After all, when given the same tools, a child’s mind almost always surpasses a boring adult’s.

A room from Immersive Monet, where other perspectives of the painting using Monet’s style were added, bringing a sense of space and depth. (Courtesy: immersive Monet on Facebook)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying there are no merits in these immersive experiences. For example, among the most recent exhibitions, I listed at the beginning, Immersive Monet did a much better job building a…