Art as Commodity: The Risks of the Van Gogh Exhibit Phenomenon

The number of visitors for more traditional art museums has been declining for some time, a decrease that has been emphasized by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Simultaneously, the Van Gogh experience has gained a massive amount of traction since 2020 and 2021, a phenomenon that is still continuing.

Wheat Field with Cyresses by Vincent Van Gogh. Media from Wix.

The rapidly growing popularity of immersive museum exhibits has not been attributed to one thing, yet the amount of visitors and posts on social media has not slowed. The appeal of immersive exhibits versus traditional art museums lies in feeling like being a part of the artwork projected on all walls, while ambient sounds echo across the room.

However, due to the clear connection between immersive exhibits and social media posts, and the fact that there are at least five different immersive Van Gogh exhibitions currently running (“Van Gogh Alive,” Immersive Van Gogh,” “Imagine Van Gogh: The Immersive Exhibition,” “Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience,” and “Beyond Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience), the question is whether or not these exhibits exist to honor artists or to commodify them.

First, there is an extensive history of art transforming within capitalism, a commercial process that has since been amplified by the likes of social media.

The art history department of the University of York points out the following: “When art makes the headlines, it is usually about money.” Another notable quote of the same nature was said by former Metropolitan Museum of Art director Thomas Hoving.

Hoving stated, “Art is money! Art is money-sexy! Art is money-sexy-social-climbing-fantastic!”

... There is an extensive history of art transforming within capitalism, a commercial process that has since been amplified by the likes of social media.

Many art history scholars have published work that tried to define the true meaning of art in a way that does not connect to the art market. According to the University of California Press, most arguments stem from art only being true when it is made out of freedom from its commercial aspects.

However, it is not at all easy to separate art and money. This is proven by the sensation surrounding the Van Gogh exhibits.

Immersive exhibitions play into the idea that younger generations value experiences over materials, another direct connection to posting on social media.

According to a social and cultural experiment done by critic Amanda Hess, she “concluded that the real experience on offer was posting to social media.” Therefore, it can be assumed that the intended pay-off for attending immersive museum exhibits is ultimately a photo opportunity.

While this may be obvious, the intentions of immersive exhibits that essentially do not bring anything new or groundbreaking to innovative art experiences are much more nuanced and complex.

That being said, the popularity of immersive art experiences does also allow opportunity to consume art in ways that are different from traditional museums, such as utilizing new technology to create relevant atmospheres.

These experiences also keep influential art alive, despite any other monetary intentions behind them.

Therefore, it can be assumed that the intended pay-off for attending immersive museum exhibits is ultimately a photo opportunity.

Due to this aspect, the question of which artists get to be immortalized remains relevant. From a business standpoint, artists like Vincent van Gogh are the obvious choices for immersive exhibits.

After the overwhelming success of these experiences, a hopeful next step is to elevate other artists. While it may be difficult to draw art away from such intense commercialism, positive outcomes, such as promoting less popular artists who are just as influential as van Gogh, are still possible.