.jpg)
Interactive exhibitions have become popular in the last few years, but could they do more harm than good to artworks? Elena Coden investigates.
The recent rise of AI-generated artwork sparked a debate around whether or not artworks created by Artificial Intelligence have to be considered valid, or if they will destroy many artistic careers. The use of technology for art and exhibitions, though, is not new at all: in the last decade, interactive museums and art experiences have become increasingly popular. They present titles like Dalí: Cybernetics; The Immersive Experience; Mexican Geniuses: A Frida and Diego Immersive Experience; Da Vinci The Exhibition, and so on.
Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience, which currently has an event in Dublin, is perhaps the most notable example of this trend. This interactive exhibition has been touring around the world since 2017 and, according to the official website, has been visited by over 5 million people. It presents several immersive rooms where artwork is projected on the walls, displaying reproductions of the artist’s belongings, and has a space where the visitors can create their own artwork. Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience shares traits with most interactive exhibitions: it focuses on an artist widely known by the public, it does not exhibit original artworks but their reproductions, is temporary and itinerary, and is organised by a private company.
Walter Benjamin suggested that, with the invention of print and photography, the reproduction of artworks would become extremely common; in Benjamin’s opinion, this would destroy the uniqueness of the artwork.
If these exhibitions do not display original artworks, but only reproductions of them, can they be considered exhibitions? Many have asked themselves such questions. In his ground-breaking 1935 essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin suggested that, with the invention of print and photography, the reproduction of artworks would become extremely common; in Benjamin’s opinion, this would destroy the uniqueness of the artwork. It seems that events like Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience take this process one step further, replicating artworks through new technological means, creating dedicated spaces and animating the artworks.
The problem, then, appears to be the risk of losing sight of what gives an artwork its definition: not only the meaning and the images represented but also how it is realised, the materials, the dimensions and the reality in which it is inserted (the museum/collection, but also its frame). Keeping Van Gogh as an example, a technological reproduction of one of his paintings could never effectively replicate the signature style of the Dutch artist, which consists in using a thick layer of paint in single separate strokes. Such a technique allowed Van Gogh to give movement and texture to his works, and this particular style cannot be witnessed when it comes to a 2D image.
The difference between what is usually called digital art and interactive exhibitions is that the former presents artworks that are originally produced with technological support, whereas the latter merely copies the source material.
If technology means the loss of artworks, then, it seems that the art world would be stuck in the past and not able to be appealing to a public that lives in a world flooded by digital images. Our contemporaneity is necessarily bound to the use of technological devices and social media, and at the same time struggles to give the right value to arts and culture. A complete dismissal of new technologies could then penalise the arts even more. It could be argued that digital art, and art that used technological devices, is consistently realised and its existence goes back to the 1960s. The difference between what is usually called digital art and interactive exhibitions is that the former presents artworks that are originally produced with technological support, whereas the latter merely copies the source material.
There is no definitive solution to how to introduce technology in museums and exhibitions while protecting the original artworks themselves, but there are paths that can – and need – to be explored. For example, a brilliant project that combines art and new technologies in a meaningful way is the one carried on by Apparati Effimeri (lit.: Ephemeral Devices), a small company based in Bologna, Italy. They engage in different kinds of works, but in 2018 the company did a remarkable installation in the city of Vignola, in the centre of Italy, using architectural mapping to project on the city’s castle the decorations that originally adorned the landmark. Through a careful study of the stones and of the traces of paint still left on the building, Apparati Effimeri was able to recreate the original decorations, laser printed them on glass disks, and built this installation.
In this case, technology did not substitute the artwork, but gave back to the community something that otherwise would’ve been lost forever. Technology should help humans to make their life better and to do what we are not physically capable of doing. When it comes to art and technology then, one of the solutions for making good use of what progress produces would be recreating what has been lost to time or natural calamities.