It’s art, but not as we know it.

As my sister-in-law is staying with us for a few days we took advantage of her visit to take a trip to York. Two events there had caught the attention of my wife. The first was the performance of Shakespeare plays in a “pop-up” theatre, and the second and exhibition based upon the life and work of Vincent Van Gogh. The Shakespeare can wait for another occasion, perhaps, but I really must share with you the Van Gogh. It is no exaggeration to say that it was an experience of art quite unlike any other I have encountered. Certainly it has compelled me to think about what it means to experience and understand art.

Located in an old, converted church, it described itself as an “immersive experience”. The display consisted of two parts. In the first, the “audience” entered the main part of the church and seated in deck chairs. This might seem to be an arbitrary and idiosyncratic choice of seating, but it had a point. On the walls, the floor and even the roof of the nave were projected a variety of changing images of Vincent’s work and the environment in which he worked. All of these were created in the style of his paintings, and animated. The result was that “crows” actually arose from a field of wheat and flew away; sitters for his portraits shifted in their seats and changed their facial expressions; the leaves from plants in still-life arrangements wilted and fell; rain descended on the grim countryside of the Borinage.

These devices might seem to be rather sensational, but they did have a serious purpose, in that they directed our attention to the fact that Vincent’s pictures were not just the result of a rather odd and distinctive ways of painting (for his time) but were components of the process of looking and seeing. We were invited to reflect on his attitude towards art, reinforced by sound quotations from his letters. (I was struck in particular by his statement that, “I put my heart and soul; into my work, and lost my mind in the process.”)

The second element of this display was a virtual reality experience, in which viewers donned headphones and visors, and were taken on a virtual journey through the Arles in which he spent several years, and its rural surroundings. This was the first occasion on which I had experienced this technology and I was absolutely staggered by it. The viewer really is “engulfed” in a synthetic environment, surrounding on all sides. This too was represented if one was passing through an animated Van Gogh painting. Every now and then a “picture-frame” was encountered which, when examined, revealed one of his paintings tin its original context.

I am still reflecting on the nature of this experience, and its possible relevance to the appreciation or understanding of art. On the positive side, it did convey the fact very clearly that the painter’s art emerged from, and was a response to, experience. This did not fit entirely comfortably, however, with other elements of the display. Van Gogh’s own statement that, “I paint my dream” seemed to me to be inconsistent with the evident importance to him of observation. In fact, I noted another of the phrases from his letters, quoted here, asking “Can the painter’s word be trusted?” (I prefer to trust the works rather than the words.)

As an account of Van Gogh’s work I also felt that there was a lack of balance. He emerged from it primarily as a painter of nature, and whereas I can see the basis for this it did seem to diminish the importance of his engagement with humanity and the human condition, for which nature served only as a metaphorical statement.* His portraits did figure here, but in far less a central position that I think they ought to have had. Where were his important depictions of human life, such as The Potato Eaters?

I was fascinated by this display as a way of introducing people to the experience of art, but have some serious reservations. We encountered a representation of Vincent’s work, and not the work itself. These are not the same. In my opinion also viewing art is essentially a dialogical process. I worry that in this kind of representation the viewers are being told too much what they ought to see. Above all, I would hate to think that visitors to this kind of exhibition were lulled into believing that they had actually encountered pictures by Vincent Van Gogh.

Despite my questions (or perhaps because of them, I hope that you will seize the opportunity to look at this show should it come your way. I’d love to know what other people think of it.

*His first choice of a career was as a pastor.