Leonardo Digital Reviews
 LDR Home  Index/Search  Leonardo On-Line  About Leonardo  Whats New








Reviewer biography

Current Reviews

Review Articles

Book Reviews Archive

Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion (Leonardo Books)

by Oliver Grau
MIT Press, 2003
416 pages; includes bibliography and index
ISBN: 0262072416
Price: $45.00

Reviewed by Amy Ione
PO Box 12748,
Berkeley,
CA USA 94712-3748

ione@diatrope.com

Given the degree to which media art and new technologies have expanded contemporary discourse, Oliver Grau's Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion is a timely book. Overall, the scope of the research is the book's most impressive feature. Tracing depictions of illusionary visual space back to antiquity, the author skillfully describes a number of projects that he believes establish historical precedents for the contemporary virtual reality case studies discussed. The book begins with (among other things) the frescoes in the Villa dei Misteri in Pompeii, the gardens of the Villa Livia near Primaporta, Renaissance and Baroque illusion spaces, and panoramas. Later chapters turn to interactive art, interface design, agents, telepresence, and image evolution. Among the contemporary artists and groups introduced are many that will be known to Leonardo readers, including ART+COM, Maurice Benayoun, Char Davies, Monika Fleischmann, Ken Goldberg, Agnes Hegedues, Eduardo Kac, Knowbotic Research, Laurent Mignonneau, Michael Naimark, Simon Penny, Daniela Plewe, Paul Sermon, Jeffrey Shaw, Karl Sims, Christa Sommerer, and Wolfgang Strauss. No doubt the range of case studies will appeal to those who desire to firmly establish intersections among art history, visual culture, and media history.

Indeed, Virtual Art is quite an accomplishment. Those seeking a general survey will applaud it. The book, however, does not persuasively engage with the overview critically. Grau never reconciles how to address the competing demands of a lengthy chronology with those of an in-depth analysis, and this limits the reach of the book overall. Moreover, his decision to chronicle a large, descriptive catalogue of art indicative of illusion/immersion, rather than to cogently scrutinize the range in relation to a complex theme, leads me to conclude that this enthusiastic contribution, while an adequate sampling, is not a robust study. Although the author claims to demonstrate a metamorphosis among the far-reaching studies, he does not explicitly develop the tensions and commonalities that exist among the variety of works included. Thus it is difficult to see precisely how the projects cohere.

More specifically, although it is clear from the case studies that Grau's research included issues surrounding the emotional and political power of the images he presents, he did not seem to have a well-developed strategy for interrelating the discrete sections. For example, Grau's impressive discussion of Anton von Werner's 1883 "The Battle of Sedan" explains how this panorama was conceived as a political tool, used to mold the public mind. Reading through it I could not help but wonder why Grau failed to introduce Plato's views here (and elsewhere). Indeed, as I reflected on the sources referenced, I kept thinking that Platonic contributions to the trajectory of the debates on art and illusion, as well as the political and emotional aspects of images, were the elephants in the room Grau never mentioned. This oversight led me to think that Grau's book runs strangely parallel to the existing critical analyses of illusion and immersion.

Plato comes to mind because his writings and legacy has been perhaps the primary influence on the denigration of the image as well as the views of illusion that came to define academic art history. Even a brief overview of this influence would have provided an historical touchstone for Grau's thesis as presented, for Plato, clearly, did not share Grau's view. Despite his own artistry, Plato's dialogues demonstrate that he questioned the value of artistic contributions. He rails against the kinds of illusions artists create and criticizes the skillful ways in which they deceive us. According to Plato, those who make art frequently compel strong and decadent emotions, arousing passions rather than reason. Rather than celebrating this, he concluded that artists mistake the fire for the sun, and create illusions that keep others from seeking the sun, the path to true understanding. For example, in Ion, an early work, Plato is already expressing some of his doubts about art directly, explaining that possessing the skill of mimesis (imitation) is not to possess true understanding. This differentiation between true understanding and having the ability to create the illusion of something (i.e. imitate) is further developed when this philosopher sets out his metaphysical position in the Republic, where he also introduces the story of the Cave. The well-known Cave is but one example of the ways in which Plato uses analogy and metaphor to make the argument that mere appearances are twice removed from Truth. Again and again the dialogues introduce the idea that the ability to create the appearance of something (i.e. an illusion) is insidious because it has the power to bewitch the soul. Ultimately Plato equated the mastery of mimesis with the skills of a puppeteer, only good for entertaining children.

Grau does not appear to share Plato's low opinion of artists and their abilities to create convincing illusions. Yet, it was unclear to me whether or not he recognized this when he concluded with the thought:

"Obviously, like Plato's prisoners in the cave, what we need to do is to turn toward the light, to face the new and, armed with our knowledge, confront it squarely. The question is not to find a way out of the cave, for there is no way out of the history of media. There are only old and new media, old and new attempts to create illusions: It is imperative that we engage critically with their history and future development." (Grau, 2003, p. 346)
If this paragraph is meant to suggest we need to re-think Plato's view, I would agree. My concern is that the complexity inherent in virtual reality precedents was underdeveloped in Grau's analysis, and this less than piercing analysis does not offer a foundation for future critical engagement. Ignoring the reach of Plato's legacy in regard to the history of illusion, for example, points to a missed opportunity to place the subject. It also underscores the degree to which Grau ignored a large body of research as well as the opinions of contemporary critics of technology who continue to follow Plato's lead when arguing that the new technologies are more artistic, amusing, and dangerous than they are enriching. Let me emphasize that studies acknowledging Plato's influence are not confined to philosophers and cultural critics. For example, E.H. Gombrich, considered the doyen of art history and illusion research when he recently passed away, began his last book, The Preference for the Primitive with the comment:

"The well-known dictum by the philosopher Alfred N. Whitehead, that the whole history of Western philosophy is but a series of footnotes to the writings of Plato, applies with special force to the philosophy of the arts . . . Plato . . . [believed] art can only flatter and deceive the senses and seduce the mind to feed on phantoms." (Gombrich, 2001, p. 11)

Strangely, Grau also fails to integrate Gombrich's voluminous research into the book. Gombrich is among the many important scholars that are never engaged, although several are mentioned in passing. Had Grau effectively introduced some of these diverse, critical viewpoints, even minimally, his strikingly narrow perspective on illusionistic history could have asked questions that significantly enhanced the study overall. A broader spectrum of views, for example, would have allowed Grau to place his proposals in relation to those who see the topic from a perspective quite unlike his own. Then, reflectively speaking to the critical voices, he would have added depth to the enthusiasm of the study.

Empirical scientific research is also strangely absent from the text. There is little indication that the author recognizes the extent to which empirical visual science has aided in the development of the technologies used in stereo projects and in the study of visual illusion, for example. Had Grau critically engaged with these domains (and similar areas) there might be more developed explanations of (among other things) (1) how illusions created on a two-dimensional surface compare to those that have a 3-dimensional foundation, (2) how a project conceived using linear perspective conceptually compares to one that relies on stereoscopic vision, (3) how projects that depend on a viewer using one static viewing point are perceived/experienced as compared to those that encourage interaction or dynamic viewing, (4) the degree to which perceptual constancies are a part of illusion/immersion, (5) how data explaining how/why we experience visual illusions impacts the development of projects, (6) the limitations of static viewing points, head-mounted displays, wands, gloves, (and limiting devices in general), (7) why some (historical and contemporary) projects simply miss the mark when attempting an illusionistic presentation, etc.

On balance, Grau's broadly based survey magnificently presents a diverse collection of projects and ably translates experiential modes into verbal descriptions. Unfortunately, a short review cannot adequately explore the breadth of this research. Suffice to say, that Grau does a wonderful job in reminding us that the incentive to create illusory environments is not new and this author has also offered areas we can explore when seeking to add historical perspective to the innovative projects of today. To Grau's credit, his excellent descriptions bring the diverse works to life. Although critical issues are not examined comprehensively, future research will no doubt build on the foundation Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion provides. Yet, perhaps ironically, the small black and white reproductions underscore the limitations of verbal descriptions. Reproduced static images simply cannot replace an actual experience/environment, particularly when the experience is illusionistic or immersive. Finally, it should be noted that Gloria Custance's translation is both intelligent and easy to read. In sum, Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion has limitations but is, nonetheless, a groundbreaking survey.

Gombrich, E. H., Ed. (2001). The Preference for the Primitive: Episodes in the History of Western Taste and Art. Phaidon, London and New York.

top







Updated 2nd February 2003


Contact LDR: ldr@leonardo.org

Contact Leonardo: isast@leonardo.info


copyright © 2003 ISAST