Wealth Doesn’t Buy Taste

An Exhibit As Immersive As Your Favorite PowerPoint

By: Lukas Levin

“It takes all your pain away,” said my mother on Facebook to all of her friends after her visit to the Van Gogh exhibit. While I do not necessarily consider myself the most qualified person to discuss the art and history of painter Vincent van Gogh, I do consider myself as qualified as my mother’s friends in her comment section. The Immersive Van Gogh Exhibit is great in concept, but poorly executed, and less accessible than your average museum.  

A brief summary of the experience as follows: you pay roughly $40 (excluding tax and other fees) to arrive at a building with $10 parking, to enter a room that is covered wall to wall in van Gogh’s art as it dissolves and crossfades into (sometimes animated) versions of his famous pieces. The hope would be that the art show would make up for the prices, as the expectation is to be immersed in the art and story of van Gogh. However, the entire process is just sitting on a cold floor, surrounded by people taking pictures of a digital copy of an original piece of work that you can drive 10 minutes to see in person for a fraction of the cost. 

The entire idea is a little bit out of touch. The main argument in favor of this exhibit is that it brings van Gogh’s work to life, adds music, and allows children and people of different backgrounds to experience his art. Except, purely from an economic standpoint, it completely boxes out key demographics. Art shouldn’t be inaccessible to lower-income people, especially for someone like van Gogh, whose VIP tickets to his own exhibit would cost one-third of his monthly income. The entire exhibit feels like a tacky display of out-of-touch wealth. This slideshow of van Gogh’s art is relatively short and can sometimes be visually captivating, but I just don’t see the appeal in spending this much money when you can be a foot away from the physical works of art in your own city.