Skip to content

Home / Journal / Dancing in the Crowd (…

Dancing in the Crowd (…
by Andy Corrigan

(…Not Smaller & Further Away)

Nearly a year ago now, I went to the newly opened Lightroom to see Fifty Nine Production’s ‘David Hockney: Bigger & Closer (Not Smaller & Further Away)’. It was billed as a ‘new kind of show’ that invited visitors to see the world through the eyes of David Hockney.

Immersive art experiences seem to be popping up everywhere and vying for a piece of glitzy “insta” attention. An article in Wallpaper about the Hockney show sets the tone with the phrase “sifts through the burgeoning landscape of immersive art experiences”, implying this type of experience will be a growing chore.1 Discussing the trend shortly before the launch of the Hockney show, Alex Fleming-Brown tells us that “immersive art exhibitions are everywhere and they’re awful […] I’ve been to London’s immersive art exhibitions, so you don’t have to.”2

There has been a lot of debate about what the David Hockney show “is” and it has certainly been divisive. Many contemplate if the deeper involvement of a living artist brings something different to the scene. In his Wallpaper article, Will Jennings, summarises the complexity of a show like this:

    “It is at once documentary, visual installation, and technological spectacle, but – cliché incoming – is it art?”

This is one of the fundamental questions that many of the reviews and commentary of the show grapple with - that inevitable and perennial enquiry of contemporary art. The other seems to be whether there are better ways to spend £25.

Here, I want to contemplate whether it matters what we label it as, what it tries to achieve, its context, and if it succeeds. I ponder what we might get from such immersive encounters, and if that endures beyond the time that we spend in them.

What does “immersive” mean?

Defining the meaning of “immersive” in this figurative sense seems to pose some nuances, so a brief overview provides a few signposts. Some dictionaries, such as Collins, put the emphasis on how many senses are being stimulated.3 Others, such as Cambridge, centre on the location of the audience and the feeling of being involved4 or in the case of Merriam-Webster, characterised by being deeply engaged.5 The Oxford English Dictionary is more forgiving, leaning on the word ‘immersion’, which taken figuratively means “absorption in some condition, action or interest etc.”, but it also hints at a method or system of teaching or learning.6 Whilst this is specifically referring to a more modern American use of the word with relation to teaching or learning a foreign language, it is not so far detached from my inference here that immersive experiences are opportunities for learning and can be studied or researched as such.

So, what’s the point?

The whole experience of ‘Bigger & Closer’ would be difficult to replicate as an archive object from which we could research or learn from after the event. This isn’t necessarily the works intention, but the performing arts have, at least historically, defined themselves by waiting for their occasion to exist (Gadamer, 1989, p. 147)7 rather than being constantly available. To approach anything close might require an equivalently large space, budget, and number of people to join you. Recreating the work in virtual reality (VR) could go some way but would lose something by putting the audience into the physical isolation of VR. The shared experience of this work is clearly where it was created to belong, and that is therefore important to its significance (Gadamer, 1989, 166).7

Ben Luke, writing in The Standard, praises many aspects but is one of the few who highlight an absence of materiality, and how that might leave the audience disappointed.8 One review in LondonARTRoundup steps beyond the show itself to contemplate the space and experience more fully, remarking on the ‘underwhelming’ and ‘dreary’ experience of the journey into and out of the immersive space,9 likening it to Spinal Tap’s attempt to find the stage.

A review by Rachel Campbell-Johnston in The Times though, hints at another interesting intention in its title that goes beyond that of a performance: “… a gloriously illustrated lecture”.10 I can’t access the full article to read as it is behind a paywall, but this suggestion of a pedagogical interaction stands out in the list of articles that have been selectively listed on David Hockney’s own website Would a lecture be bound by the same rules as a work of art? Perhaps it is important to ask the question ‘is it art’ after all?

In what is almost a review of reviews rather than a review of the show itself, (I am attempting both here…), Sarah Cascone focuses specifically on how it divided critics in her article for Artnet.11 Perhaps that is indeed the aim of contemporary art now? – to replicate current political trends and generate debate through division rather than unity. Some articles were particularly scathing. The Guardian’s Jonathon Jones described it as “an overwhelming blast of passionless kitsch” 12 and Louise Benson an “unfortunate spectacle” in ArtReview.13 Perhaps they missed the point? Perhaps Hockney missed the point? Perhaps the point is that we are all different and we all bring and take different things from sharing the same experience? Or maybe we simply don’t know what the point is yet?

What does Hockney think it is?

Several of the reviews reflect the concept that Hockney considers the show to be a work of art itself. One even suggests that the perception of this was created by the advance statements provided for the press release about the opening.14 But Hockney’s own opinions of exactly what the show is paint a more complex picture (if you’ll indulge the pun).

“I hope what it will do is give young people some ideas” Hockney tells us in a behind the scenes look at the show.15 So, in his own words his intention is to inspire somehow, a sentiment that could lean towards either ‘art’ or a ‘lecture’. Indeed, one of the chapters of the show is titled Perspective Lesson, in which Hockney says:

    “I think if you play with perspective, you can get much more interesting things out of it. […] I’m putting more in. And by putting more in, you get more reality, I think.”16

In doing so, he provides a foundation for his understanding of perspective and shares how he arrives at this understanding through his own research and practice. This chapter of the show is the most lecture-like, and many of the reviewers pick up on this as well. In describing it, they use words such as research, discussed, lecture, theory, experiment, explore, lesson, that all have connotations of pedagogical processes. In response to being asked if the motivation for the show was to help people learn how to see more like him though, Hockney replies:

    “I’m just making suggestions to people, really. That’s all I can do. And then they can go home and think about it a bit.”15

I think that’s a nice sentiment that is a clear and honest declaration of purpose, and one I can relate to.

Does it succeed?

I think Hockney potentially achieves a lot of what he attempted to set out to with ‘Bigger & Closer’. The dominant experience for me, as it also seems for many of the critics, was that it felt like being inside a documentary. It was undoubtedly a performance, tightly choreographed, and slickly presented. But as with any performance, engagement with the audience is not a given, we are in control of the level of attention we afford it. Gadamer reminds us that a work of art makes a claim over us that is only successful if we, the spectator, succumb to it that. We are otherwise ‘merely gaping out of curiosity’ (Gadamer, 1989, 126-127).7 We each bring our own perspective and take away our own understanding, or perhaps even focus too much on using our mobile devices as an interpretive or intermediate tool rather than allowing our own minds to work their magic - the contemporary form of gaping that no longer requires a dropped jaw. However, the scale of the show, and its technological determinism, undoubtably attempt to heighten the level of control the performer has over the audience and a sense of digital liveness (Auslander, 2012, 9),17 its attempt to overwhelm us perhaps even verging on sinister.

One aspect I perhaps found less sinister than some, were the journeys the audience makes into, around and out of the immersive space. Which to me seem less Spinal Tap (show me a contemporary gallery that doesn’t have a dreary industrial looking corridor or stair well!) and even at times have an element of alure. Light and colour spill through from the main space into one corridor on the way in, leaving many visitors, me included, slowing down to wonder if that is part of the show. Likewise, when at one point I moved from the main floor space up to an upper viewing level that peers back into the space, you can hear David’s voice calling you back to the show.

Video projection is of course not a new medium, so I think it’s also worth contemplating the parentage of such immersive experiences as Hockney’s ‘Bigger & Closer’. In attempting to do so briefly, I want merely to share a personal observation – There is often a film installation in galleries and mixed media exhibitions. They are normally situated in dark, obscured corners of galleries, with an awkward amount of seating. The audience often in constant flux, only a dedicated few seeing out the looping performance, most just briefly resting in a state of mild ambivalent confusion, long enough to find a balance between their weary feet and their awkward minds. Maybe my perspective here is a particularly stiff British one, but there is certainly a chasm (a Grand Canyon even!) between these experiences and the show that Hockney has created. The difference? Bigger, most definitely, closer is harder to say.

The content, pace, and pulse of the show lean me towards sharing the opinion of Mark Hudson as he concludes his review for the Independent – that the ebb and flow of love for Hockney’s work is “all part of the journey”.14 That journey is a story, and stories are a spatial practice (Certeau, 1984, 115),18 woven together to demonstrate and explain something, to link ideas, places, objects, and creations. In this case, it is Hockney’s invitation to connect with his thought process rather than to serve solely as a big, loud, splashy retrospective of his life’s best work. Perhaps this is why some people felt disappointed because that is what they were expecting, and they didn’t get it. They wanted a quick, easy and lazy sensation but were instead asked to flex their minds.

There are perhaps many flaws, holes and contradictions in David Hockney’s process, but nobody’s perfect right? There’s a lesson in that – could that perhaps be the real thing we learn from this experience? There is no answer to seek, merely an invitation to be inspired, and to share that. Despite any intentions though, it seems many reviewers left feeling further away rather than closer, and that must mean the show wasn’t a complete success. Does that matter? No… Certeau tells us that the primary role of the story is to ‘open a legitimate theatre for practical actions’ (Certeau,1984 , 125)18 – Hockney has done exactly that. How we continue the story by bridging the boundaries of Hockney’s space to our own when we leave the show is entirely down to our own actions.

Something utterly charming happened whilst I was in the show, I witnessed a young girl, completely oblivious to the rest of the audience, who had found a clear spot near one of the walls, and she was totally engrossed in dancing to the sounds and through the projected lights and images as they moved around her. That, surely, is the very embodied definition of immersive. I wonder how many other people would have secretly wished they had the courage to join her? But at what price? £25 is undeniably expensive for something that lasts less than an hour, and whilst the production must have come at a high cost, does the intention then become disingenuous if its cost makes it elitist? I thought it was a great experience, and it has undeniably had a lasting impact on me, as I write this nearly a year later, but then I’m lucky enough to be able to afford a ticket.

– Image above: A child dances amongst the crowd during Fifty Nine Production’s ‘David Hockney: Bigger & Closer (Not Smaller & Further Away)’ immersive art experience at the Lightroom in Kings Cross, London

The writing of this post has been funded by the AHRC-RLUK Professional Practice Fellowship Scheme for research and academic libraries.

  1. Jennings, Will. (2023). David Hockney at Lightroom: a technologically spectacular journey, but is it art?. Available at: https://www.wallpaper.com/art/david-hockney-bigger-and-closer-lightroom-london-review. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  2. Fleming-Brown, Alex. (2023). Immersive Art Exhibitions Are Everywhere and They’re Awful. Available at: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgngz/why-immersive-art-exhibitions-are-awful. (Accessed: 26/03/2024). ↩

  3. Collins English Dictionary. (Date unknown). Definition of ’immersive’. Available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/immersive. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  4. Cambridge Dictionary. (Date unknown). Meaning of immersive in English. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/immersive. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  5. Merriam-Webster. (Last Updated 2024). immersive adjective. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immersive. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  6. Oxford English Dictionary. (Date unknown). immersion noun. Available (behind a paywall) at: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/immersion_n?tab=meaning_and_use. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  7. Gadamer, H.G. (1989). Truth and Method (2nd revised edition). Translated by J.Weinsheimer and D. Marshall. London: Sheed & Ward. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Luke, Ben. (2023). David Hockney at the Lightroom review: full immersion into the artist’s career produces mixed results. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/exhibitions/david-hockney-bigger-and-closer-not-smaller-and-further-away-lightroom-new-exhibition-b1061952.html. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  9. Anon. (2023). David Hockney at Lightroom. Available at: https://www.londonartroundup.com/reviews/david-hockney-at-lightroom. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  10. Campbell-Johnston, Rachel. (2023). David Hockney: Bigger & Closer (not smaller & further away) review — a gloriously illustrated lecture. Available (behind a paywall) at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-hockney-bigger-closer-not-smaller-further-away-review-a-gloriously-illustrated-lecture-n9mrgmpxf. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  11. Cascone, Sarah. (2023). ‘Affecting’ or ‘Passionless’? Critics Are Divided on David Hockney’s Newly Opened Immersive Light Show. Available at: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/david-hockney-bigger-and-closer-light-immersive-show-2260379. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  12. Jones, Jonathon. (2023). David Hockney: Bigger and Closer review – an overwhelming blast of passionless kitsch. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/feb/21/david-hockney-bigger-and-closer-review-immersive-exhibition-lightroom. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  13. Benson, Louise. (2023). The Unfortunate Spectacle of the David Hockney Immersive Experience. Available at: https://artreview.com/david-hockney-bigger-and-closer-not-smaller-and-further-away-lightroom-london-review/. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩

  14. Hudson, Mark. (2023). David Hockney, Lightroom review: An immersive show that synthesises Hockney’s career in utterly beguiling fashion. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/reviews/david-hockney-lightroom-bigger-and-closer-b2286811.html. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩ ↩2

  15. Jonze, Tim, Stone, Mee-Lai & Sutcliffe, Justin. (2023). ‘I hope it gives young people some ideas!’: David Hockney’s immersive art show – photo essay. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/feb/20/david-hockney-lightroom-immersive-bigger-closer-not-smaller-further-away. (Accessed: 25/03/2024). ↩ ↩2

  16. Grimmer, Mark & Hockney, David. (2023). Bigger & Closer (Not Smaller & Further Away). [Immersive Art Exhibition]. Lightroom, Kings Cross, London. [Viewed 22/04/2023]. ↩

  17. Auslander, Philip. Digital Liveness: A Historico-Philosophical Perspective. PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art. Vol. 34, No. 3 (SEPTEMBER 2012), pp. 3-11. ↩

  18. Certeau, Michel de. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by S. Rendall. California: University of California Press. ↩ ↩2