A Positive Space...

Using the feedback collected from Jeffrey Hammond's exhibition and past experience from exhibitions that affected and influenced me (plus the physical properties of available print resources), I created a VR gallery for my L5 photography students.

This time I made the gallery an O'Doherty driven ideal space, with a nod to the Museum of One Painting. I wanted the space to slowly reveal its secrets so I based it purely on individual rooms for individual works and pairs and triptychs by the same author. I chose the size and placement of each piece based on content, visual impact and the wishes of the artist.

Technically, this gallery came together very quickly.








I presented the gallery to the students and used the event to further my research by asking them to fill out a questionnaire. This time I wanted to find out whether the exhibition encouraged them to think about how the gallery space affected their work and what impact scale had on their work. I also wanted to find out whether the exhibition/space/experience would leave a lasting impression and affect the student's choices in the future.



Questionnaire
VR Gallery - L5 Photography 20 December 2018

8 participants

Have you experienced VR before?
YES   3   NO 5 (please tick)

Have you exhibited before?
YES 2* NO 6** (please tick)

What were your first impressions when you saw your work in this gallery?

• Very realistic - get the sense for dimensions, depth etc. I like how I get an idea for what my work would look like in an actual gallery.
• Sizing of images, which I don't think I would have thought about before. Seeing an image the size of the wall shows up its capability better.
• It's just breathtaking in a good way, it made me feel confident.
• I was amazed*
• Look[s] great - Seeing my images large. Colours are well represented*
• My work was not there, but everyone else's was presented well.
• Fantastic.
• My first impression was 'can I pick out the detail' and can I see the pixels.

Describe how your work is exhibited.
N/A (I asked this to try and get the students to think about how their work was displayed before moving onto the next questions).

Describe how you think your work is affected by the way it is exhibited.

• Made me realise it would work - big impact due to size.
• Colour seem to pop even more.
• It has made [me] think about artist[s] future.
• You can see the images in a big print. Each image has its own room, produces an atmosphere of that image. Felt like I was there.*
• It allows me to view my images in a large format. Also side-by-side allows comparison of images.*
• The work looks posher.
• It makes it look so much better.
• I could see that even at that size, it is sharp so I know I have no need to upgrade my camera body.

Having seen your work in this gallery space would you change anything about your practice in the future? Size? Shape? Composition? etc?

• [The} only thing I would change is to add the rest of my series - due to that, slightly smaller but without they are fine.
• Size, the larger images really have an effect when viewing especially with the headset on.
• I am going more on shapes in my future because if effects the view.
• Print big. Consider new ways to exhibit.*
• No?? Maybe - I might consider a brighter exposure?*
• I think so, I could present in this way, I'd think about the size and image quality.
• No.
• I will still shoot and process the same things in a similar way but will now pay more attention to getting the image sharp before I put it out there.

Do you think this exhibition has helped you consider how you might exhibit your work in the future?

• I originally struggled to picture my work in a gallery - more low (small) scale things like magazine or for a gallery, somewhere like Open Eye (Liverpool).
• Yes it has as I've never liked VR before and this has given me a positive feeling about this technology for the first time.
• Yeah. Don't see it as much negative thing.
• Yes.*
• Yes. I would consider using a set format for my images.*
• Hopefully.
• Yes.
• YES! bigger is better.

What did you think about the exhibition as a whole?

• Very realistic, perfect for seeing own work in a gallery setting - could use it to plan future works.
• I like that I could walk around the space without have a room full of people in a gallery. I also liked the effect the larger images had on me, I would like to be able to physically walk the whole way instead of clicking.
• Just awesome and amazing
• Brilliant, fun to be able to see/feel the experience.*
• Very good.*
• Well put together.
• Amazing.
• I can see this becoming a cultural thing. People viewing galleries across the world without needing to leave their living room. (or [se..] if they are mobility impaired).

Initial Results/Conclusions
The student's first impressions were very positive and the question I asked about it (3) once again highlighted the experiential hurdle and that the two of the three people who had experienced VR before gave a more descriptive and objective answer than those who had not. This is something that I need to be aware of as 'first timers' do not necessarily give an objective view. However, my questions seem to do a good job of channelling more considered feedback further down the questionnaire.

The exhibition positively affected all the participants view of their work - It seems that most appreciate that their work will perform well at these larger sizes and it gives them confidence in their own abilities.

The answers generally show that the students are considering the impact of size on their practice. This is for both technical and impact reasons. They talk about quality and sharpness; both very important for photographic works of a larger scale. Against this, one has to consider that most (if not all) of these students have never printed their images larger than A3, so this is a new challenge for them... one which they traditionally do not encounter until they are preparing for their graduate show right at the end of their study, which is then too late to do anything about it. So this is a really positive outcome in terms of their development as photographers.

The students unanimously believed that this exhibition has helped them consider how they might exhibit their work in the future. I have been very careful to exhibit the work at real world sizes and we have the resources to do exactly that with our large format printers at B&FC, so these results can be directly transferable into the 'real' world. I think that the impact of size has been supported by the size of the exhibition spaces, which again are not too dissimilar to what one may find in the real world.

The positive thing for me and this project is the students would not have come to these conclusions without visiting this VR gallery unless they are able to print out images of a similar size and exhibit their work in a gallery - and both of these things are impractical, either through cost and/or time.

The participants do a good job of summing up the experience and pointing towards the future in their comments in the final section of the questionnaire - perfect for seeing own work in a gallery setting - could use it to plan future works. I especially liked - I like that I could walk around the space without have a room full of people in a gallery. I also liked the effect the larger images had on me - which supports O'Doherty's notion of the installation photograph as being the perfect viewing experience and, of course, one in which VR lets you participate! (see previous post - The Museum of One Painting). Finally, the last sentiment/comment reinforces the notions of universal accessibility and equality - I can see this becoming a cultural thing. People viewing galleries across the world without needing to leave their living room.

Have a great Christmas!


EDIT (10/1/19): I came across this picture of the Third Gallery at The Congiunta Foundation...



It has many similarities to my central corridor and it's inclusion of four small rooms, seen here on the left. However, its main galleries are the central corridor rooms, so a visit would be a fairy linear experience... I may build a VR version, to experience the effect. I will feed back here.

If you are reading this blog and feel you can add something to my research then please comment… even if you are correcting me or don’t agree with something that I say.

Art and The Power of Placement.

Art and The Power of Placement is a book by Victoria Newhouse that investigates, compares and critiques galleries and the exhibition of artworks. She discusses how the context of the gallery/museum and the placement decisions of the curator can affect the meaning and presence of an artwork as it is perceived by the viewer.

Newhouse splits her approach into three main areas of interest; How Place Affects Perception, How Display Defines the Object and How Installation Can Affect Modern Art where she devotes a good proportion of the book looking at the exhibitions of Jackson Pollock because his work is representative of a wider range of artworks and according to Newhouse, 'reveals a vulnerability to the conditions of display, similar to that for earlier art'.

She is able to examine Pollock's exhibitions in detail by looking at how his work has been displayed over the course of 50 years by dipping into extensive installation photos/films and plans documented for each exhibition/gallery.

One thing that hits you as you leaf through those central pages is how much galleries have changed over that time; becoming more simpler, whiter, lighter and bigger over 50 years. The biggest step appears to happen between the late sixties and early eighties.

Newhouse uses the later part of the book, Placing Art, to discuss 'the most basic aspects of art display' and covers wall texture, wall colour, frames, labels, scale and light. She ends the book by looking at The Choice of Visual Context.

The book is a highly detailed and beautifully illustrated investigation into the intricacies of presenting art.

If you are reading this blog and feel you can add something to my research then please comment… even if you are correcting me or don’t agree with something that I say.

Peter Blake's Ideal Museum

In 1949 the architect Peter Blake designed and built a model for the ideal museum. The museum was designed to exhibit the works of Jackson Pollock and he wanted to reflect the artist's studio of the time and wanted the paintings to define the space, not the other way round (Blake, ??). The interesting feature of this gallery is the complete removal of any substantial walls. Instead the paintings themselves divide up the space, themselves being book-ended/supported between mirrors, to give the paintings the feeling of infinity. The semi circular partition is perforated to reflect the pellucid nature of the space.

You can read the article; Pollock: Blake’s 1949 Museum Design by Helen A. Harrison here - http://www.aaqeastend.com/contents/retrospective/issue-1-retrospective/blakes-1949-pollock-museum-design/

...and a gallery of images of a replica of the Blake's model here - http://www.aaqeastend.com/contents/portfolio/issue-1-portfolio/pollock-museum/

http://www.aaqeastend.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Ideal-Museum-Overview-B-808.jpg


http://www.aaqeastend.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Ideal-Museum-Overview-A-807.jpg

The gallery was never built, but VR gives me an excellent opportunity to build the gallery and walk around and experience it first hand! Here is my interpretation... (The artwork I have used is a license free place holder).

 

 

And because it was meant to be placed in Pollock's back garden...


The design is certainly light and airy. The art is indistinguishable from the architecture, which is Blake's intention. However, the artwork does tend to feel more like part of an experience, rather than the soul purpose of the space... now maybe it would help if I used Pollock's actual work, then perhaps it may feel like one is wondering in a Bachelard-esk forest. Without walls, ones gaze does tend to wander into the distance and the work becomes equal to the environment.

This was a good exercise and has got me thinking about the shape of space and subtlety of the act of exhibiting artworks or at least the possible needlessness of making great gestures in this sphere.

If you are reading this blog and feel you can add something to my research then please comment… even if you are correcting me or don’t agree with something that I say.

Jeffrey Hammond - Exhibition

An opportunity presented itself that allowed me to recreate an exhibition in VR, that I could show at the same time and in the same place as the actual exhibition itself. It also allowed me to gather feedback via questionnaire, during the private view, from a broad range of people (locally connected to the arts).



The building of the gallery in UE4 has become a fairly straight forward technical exercise, depending on the depth of detail in the recreation... I have included screen grabs of the results below, alongside images of the actual exhibition. The only difficulty I had was in controlling the lighting so that the paintings did not look washed out or too dark.

 

 

I wanted this opportunity to provide me with constructive feedback with regards to moving my project on. But, I found it very difficult to think of questions that would do this, with this existing set-up. However, I wanted to test some ideas raised by The Gallery of One Painting and O'Doherty, and make comparisons between classically populated gallery spaces and works presented individually in their own exhibition space. So, to make this happen, I had to add a couple of extra spaces to the existing gallery. This enabled me to ask people what they thought of the two different spaces as well as the actual gallery, but with the same paintings.




I added three smaller spaces, each containing one work.

Putting together a purposely relevant and coherent questionnaires for this project has been as steep a learning curve as learning to use UE4 software. It took a few days to resolve a questionnaire that I could use during the private view evening for Jeffrey Hammond's exhibition, as I knew there would be a diverse range of people there. Even so, on reflection, I still managed to include questions that did not really add anything to my knowledge, but maybe I was trying cover all bases.

During the Private View I asked people to look around the recreation of the real gallery, then the smaller attached spaces, before asking the questions. I had eleven participants, which included five who had never experienced VR before and the initial reactions are always the same; wow, fantastic, amazing!... One nice thing about this project is that I have been able to introduce so many people to the VR experience and it really is one of those, "you do not understand it if you haven't experienced it" moments.

I have included the results from the questionnaire below - 

The VR Gallery Project
QUESTIONNAIRE
Wednesday 12 December 2018

1. Have you experienced VR before?
YES 6 (answers in red) NO 5 (answers in blue)

2. How would you rate the experience of visiting the VR gallery compared to the real one?
BETTER 1   2   (3)    WORSE  5   3   (8)

3. In the VR galleries, did you prefer to see the work exhibited together or individually?
TOGETHER  2   2   (4) INDIVIDUALLY  4   2   (6)
Why?
• Individually - it focused my mind on the image – I was less distracted by the other works.
• Individually - it gave me more sensations of space.
• Individually - privacy/contemplation – focused.
• Together – a better sense of proportion.
• The individual galleries feel more intimate.
• Together – they are an ensemble, a journey.
• Individually – you engage with the art more.
• Individually – more focused.
• Together – I can be selective… I can choose which works I want to look at… it is not dictated to me.
• Both – Interested to see individually and collectively. [The artist].

4. Did you think the work looked larger or smaller when you viewed it in the individual rooms, compared to the main gallery?
LARGER  2   2   (4)   SMALLER  1   2   (3) NO DIFFERENCE  3   1   (4)

5. Did you think about the work differently when you viewed it individually as opposed to collectively?
YES  6   5   (11) NO  0   0   (0)
Why?
• Yes - Individually, I considered the work in its own right. Collectively, I considered the artist and his style more. I viewed it as a body of work and moved between the images.
• Yes - it concentrates you on a single item.
• Yes - it’s more focused.
• Yes – I preferred the contrast of the main gallery.
• Yes – I paid more attention.
• Yes – More grandiose, more dramatic, more special. Benefits from directional light. More immersive.
• Yes – but they need to be together!
• Yes – more engaged with the individual piece.
• Yes – centred on one piece. More intense.
• Yes – The Painting is isolated, 100% attention.
• Yes – I feel very close to it. [The artist].

6. Did you prefer to see the work presented in the larger individual room or the smaller individual rooms?
LARGER  3   3   (6) SMALLER  2   2   (4)   I DID NOT NOTICE A DIFFERENCE IN SIZE  1   0   (1)
Why?
• Larger - not as cluttered.
• Larger - less claustrophobic.
• Larger – Brighter, less claustrophobic.
• I paid more attention to the work in the smaller side rooms. Perhaps, different images need different size rooms.
• Smaller - the change of lighting in the smaller space made the work feel more dramatic.
• Smaller – less distraction. Smaller room gives a more intense experience.

Do you have any other comments or observations?
• I found moving around the real exhibition difficult due to physical problems – I felt like I had more time and freedom in VR. The solitude was also quite liberating.
• I prefer larger works and this [VR] could/would show this. Good!
• A good substitute, but not a replacement for a real gallery.
• A very weird experience, but I can see the future.
• Then resolution warped the images when close to them.
• It is unnerving when you get stuck in a corner.
• Amazing experience.
• I prefer a real gallery, but it’s [VR] a good substitute.
• It was a bit blurry as my vision is not very good.
• I wanted to repaint the work to suit the new environment! Open to technology and impressed by it. Alternative for exhibiting – a good tool. [The artist].

The questionnaire strongly supports the idea of the gallery of one painting and O'Doherty's perfect viewing experience and my thoughts on the subject. In question 3, six people preferred to see the paintings individually as opposed to four preferring to see them collectively. And in question 5, everyone thought about the work differently when they viewed it in individual rooms, rather than collectively.

I wandered if the size of the exhibition space would diminish or increase to perceived size of a work but it seems fairly inconclusive according to this questionnaire. However, in question 4, three people who had been exposed to VR before felt that there was no difference in size and only 1 person who had not been exposed to VR thought there was no difference in size. I think this difference of opinion is down to the 'overwhelming' first time experience of VR.

I wanted know what people thought about the size of the gallery in terms of the viewing experience of a single work of art and in question 6, a larger group of people preferred the larger space and commented that they felt it was not as cluttered and less claustrophobic. However, it seems that a smaller space could inspire a more dramatic and intense experience.

Finally, the sentiment that came through in the 'do you have any other comments?' bit, was that people felt that VR was a good substitute, bit not a replacement for a real gallery, which is reflected in the answers to question 2.

One more bit of interesting information that I have gathered through other conversations and reflected in this questionnaire, is the ability of VR to allow people to move around a space and investigate artworks at a variety of distances, especially if they are physically impaired [in reality].

So where do I go now. Personally, I now want to design a gallery that encompasses many individual rooms to show off artworks individually... or a space that slowly reveals its secrets, one-by-one, so the viewer is not overwhelmed by the experience of confronting many work at the same time (I think this may form my next post).

Ideally and in support of this project's objectives, I need to allow creative arts students take this project forwards and I need to think about how that is going to happen.

If you are reading this blog and feel you can add something to my research then please comment… even if you are correcting me or don’t agree with something that I say.

The VR Museum of Fine Art

It was recommended that I had a look at The VR Museum of Fine Art. This museum brings together artefacts and/or works of art, of vastly different type and scale, from across the planet, and displays them in one place.



The museum allows the viewer to experience the scale and textures of works of art up close. In their own words, "No rope barriers or glass walls here. Feel free to explore the artwork however you see fit. Roomscale VR lets you walk around, duck under, and even hug the life-sized figures".

David by Michelangelo displayed at the Galleria dell'Accademia, Florence, Italy is an example I used in an earlier post about the scale of artwork and here it is, displayed at life size for the VR visitor to walk around and it is placed close to more natural sized sculptures which give one a great sense of scale.



There are a couple of things that affect the experience. One being the resolution of some of the sculptures captured through photogrammetry. Most of the detail is incredible but a couple are a bit woolly and I think lets it down a little as you can be completely immersed by one object only to have that illusion shattered by the next. But I am being very picky here.


Some of the detail and resolution is a little woolly...


... but most is fantastic.

This is yet another VR gallery that has introduced furniture as well as a low murmuring 'museum' sound in an to attempt to make the experience feel more like going to a real museum..! Why? I am sure that for some people, metal detectors, reception, cafe and hushed sounds can be quite off-putting and quite the opposite to a relaxed and casual visit to the museum, certainly in the current climate of anti terror measures the we have to negotiate to access a public building. So why are people designing the galleries like this.



I am being a little unfair, for this gallery does a couple of things that I really like. For example The Great Buddha of Kamakura is presented (in a slightly stereotypical way) outside on a snowy mountain side which, in the real world, would be a physical impossibility.



The museum exhibits a number of paintings and the detail and resolution of them is a really high quality and because this is VR, you can go right up to the pieces and see the individual brush strokes!

 

I like this gallery/museum because it shows us a way forwards with regards to bringing diverse and widely spread artefacts together, into one space for direct comparison. It also demonstrates how detailed and life-like the experience can be/should be and I personally like the fact that the quality of the photogrammetry/reproduction has taken precedence over the experience as a whole... which is as it should be?

The VR Museum of Fine Art is available for free download through Steam - https://store.steampowered.com/app/515020/The_VR_Museum_of_Fine_Art/

If you are reading this blog and feel you can add something to my research then please comment… even if you are correcting me or don’t agree with something that I say.