Here: Interactive ‘Starry Night’ programmed by Petros Vrellis, is a demonstration of an interactive version of Vincent Van Gogh’s ‘Starry Night’. Much was discussed about this sort of application during last year’s Experience Design course museum design project. I haven’t ever seen anything quite as compelling as this with interactive interpretations of paintings, and so thought that it warranted mentioning here.
What are your reactions to this sort of re-visualization of paintings? Does it even still feel like a painting? What do you appreciate (or dislike) about rendering paintings on an interactive display, that is, what is the most compelling (or repulsive) thing about this?
I think the historical and cultural significance also contribute much to how we approach an interactive painting. Interacting with a familiar painting like ‘Starry Night’ may be quite a different experience than interacting with a previously unseen work of contemporary art. So apart from the elements absent in the interactive rendering of the painting (e.g. texture, light absorption/reflection, framing, etc…) I feel like there are a whole host of factors that influence how compelling or compellingly repulsive or boring we find interactive experiences like the one presented in the video. enjoy! (or don’t)!
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 13, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Leo
After watching that video, I kind of felt it a bit awkward to title the demonstration “Interactive Starry Night” or “Starry Night (interactive)” or whatever. It’s kind of just tacking on the word “interactive” to the name of the original work of art. I feel as though that the interactive display in of itself should be recognized separately as its own work of art that is simply paying homage to another work of art.
I think to tack on the word “interactive” to the original’s name makes the interactive display tie itself TOO closely to the original, which kind of downplays the work and effort the creator of the interactive display has put in. I dislike that because the creator probably put a significant amount of effort into creating the display, and the creator himself is making artistic judgments to interpret how the original piece would appear if it were animated and interactive. I also dislike it because I feel that the original is its own distinct work of art and should be treated as being separate from anything that might “augment” it.
It doesn’t feel like a painting to me anymore. It feels more like a cool, artistic interactive animation or screensaver.
February 14, 2012 at 3:13 am
vince
I like that, though I can’t help but feel that the designer was running the risk of this sort of criticism (either positive or negative criticism about the interactive display’s relationship to the original painting and Van Gogh himself). If you already really like this painting or grew up seeing it on posters in school and your friends bedrooms, then my assumption is you are primed to think, “wow I’m interacting with ‘Starry Night’ the painting by Van Gogh’”…
So i agree that tacking on the word ‘interactive’ to the name of the painting is in bad taste, but I think it’s more than the word ‘interactive’ that ties the display too closely to the original. I think it’s the painting itself. Of course it can be evaluated by its interactive or formal properties (in some instances a discussion of the formal properties of the original painting will overlap with a corresponding discussion of the interactive display), but I think this would only be a partial evaluation, given the original paintings familiarity and wide dissemination.