Exploring the unique attributes of a VR art gallery

Recently I have been exploring the unique attributes that VR can bring to an art gallery. I have been particularly interested in attributes that can allow me to design new and original ways of exhibiting art works.

I have defined the following attributes as being unique to VR -

• the ability to create infinite space and/or spaces.
• the ability to exhibit artworks at any size.
• the feeling of actually being there.
• sense of isolation

...I am sure there are more that I have not identified yet...

I have created the following spaces to physically explore these attributes and weight them against the manifesto I set out earlier this year (link). They have all been created for the Oculus Quest.

The first gallery explores the use of space and scale and includes a precipitous walkway leading to a huge photograph provided by artist Helen Kay. The space and scale is maximised by the gorge like confines of the side walls and the inclusion of downward (cliff edge) space increases that feeling. However, the experience, especially for those with vertigo, outweighs the impact of the artwork, so does not pass rule number two of the VR Gallery Manifesto (link)

The second gallery is fairly radical in design and use. It uses the teleport system, that has become the standard way of navigating VR environments, to allow the viewer to move around the space in all directions (including vertical). So the gallery does not have to be navigable on a single plane/floor and does not need stairs to move between different heights. Spherical exhibition spaces lend themselves to this design very well, however, it meant that the exhibited artworks needed to be shown on round panels as square edged ones did not fit so well... and this is where this design fell down as it impinged on the view of the artworks and failed rule number three of the manifesto. But this does not mean the concept failed completely and is an area I want to explore in more detail soon.

An interesting observation was pointed out to me, that the design is very panoptic and almost allows the visitor to see all the artworks from the central room, but does not allow you to see any other artworks when you're stood in front of one... I have explored this concept before (link), but not made the connection to the panopticon.

The final gallery is the most 'normal' in design but has been designed to create differentiated space sizes. It also manages to encompass the over/under/through idea of introducing a sense of exploration to the gallery experience (link). It happily passes all the manifesto rules. However, it has not really furthered my research in the way the other two have but it is a safe and sophisticated design that I am fairly happy with.

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.