Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is chief executive of the Lowry, Manchester’s visual and performance art centre
Immersive art transcends the traditional. It demands active involvement rather than passive observation. Yet it has faced heavy criticism from the arts world — dismissed as superficial spectacle or cultural dilution.
I’ve heard all the arguments: that it’s “banal,” “unimaginative” or even a “money-grab”; that it reduces profound artistic statements to social media content and pulls audiences and funding away from “real” art.
Let’s be honest — some of this is fair. I’ve been to immersive exhibitions that felt more like animated screensavers. When technology serves itself rather than the story, the novelty wears off. Notorious examples hit the headlines for expensive tickets and disappointed audiences.
But after touring immersive exhibitions worldwide, I’ve come away with a different view. Families discover art together, teenagers engage with cultural heritage for the first time and neurodivergent visitors find new meaning in what they experience: this isn’t dilution — it’s expansion of what art can be.
There’s another misconception, that immersive art just means a 360° projection room. But that’s not the point — when done well, such exhibitions complement traditional art forms and provide new routes in to culture. In Tokyo, I found myself barefoot at TeamLab, walking through water while digital fish swam around me. It wasn’t just beautiful — it was joyful, with an audience spanning multiple generations.
Theatre is evolving in a similar way, with performances that allow audiences to choose where to go and what to watch so that no two experiences are alike. This offers almost limitless possibilities.
As ticket prices rise, we must ensure that such experiences don’t become a luxury product. The audiences I’ve seen at immersive exhibitions are often more diverse than those in traditional galleries — young people, families, tourists and first-time art-goers. There’s a real sense of openness to something new among visitors who might feel excluded or intimidated by conventional venues.
The distinction isn’t between immersive and traditional — it’s between work that reveals meaning and work that masks its absence. Some of the most affecting immersive installations I’ve seen were modest in scale. Others, despite vast budgets, left me cold. When artistic intent is present, you can feel it — the work holds your attention, not just your senses.
A powerful example is “Goddess” in Singapore, an exhibition exploring women in film from Black and Asian traditions. It combined video, audio, interactivity and original costumes. It wasn’t just spectacle — it was resonant thoughtful storytelling.
We tried to capture that spirit with our digital experience based on L S Lowry’s painting “Going to the Match.” LOWRY 360 wasn’t created to replace the canvas but to breathe new life into it — to help audiences who may have never visited a gallery feel its world. That painting belongs to everyone in the north of England. Visitors step into it, feel the buzz of match day, the weight of collective identity and the heartbeat of place and community.
To those who ask whether immersive exhibitions are “real” art, I’d ask: by whose measure? Art has always evolved with technology — from oil paint to photography to video. This is simply the next chapter. We’re only beginning to explore what’s possible when haptics, the technology that stimulates the senses of touch and motion, meets narrative, when scent meets AI, when projection meets live performance,
Culture’s future lies in finding new ways to combine tradition and innovation. Immersive exhibitions are often the start of a journey, not the end. And these days someone’s first meaningful connection with art may well happen in a 360° room rather than in front of a flat canvas.
