Launched by HTC VIVE in 2017, VIVE Arts leverages digital technology to revolutionize the arts and culture sector. The initiative collaborates with museums and artists worldwide, creating immersive experiences that transform how art is exhibited, experienced, and preserved. Celina Yeh, Executive Director of VIVE Arts, shares insights on how VR is enhancing cultural engagement and making art more accessible to everyone.

An important part of VIVE Arts’ mission is to preserve art and culture, make them accessible to a wider audience and transform the way they can be experienced. Can you tell us a little bit about your journey as executive producers, co-producers and distributors in the world of contemporary art? 

HTC founded VIVE Arts in 2017. However, as early as 2013now more than 10 years ago-the company had actively been exploring the XR field and doing extensive research and development work on these technologies. Already by 2016 HTC had begun collaborating with institutions and museums, especially in Taiwan, in the field of contemporary art.

From the beginning we had a clear mission: not merely to produce virtual reality headsets, but rather to create an ecosystem for this technology. Good hardware is not enough if content is lacking, and at the time the content was very much related to gaming and entertainment, and almost not at all to the art world.

Our President spotted this gap and understood early on that art, culture, and the museum sector in general were by their very nature ideal platforms for people who wanted to experience something different, test new directions, break new ground. That’s where the idea of collaborating with museums and institutions started. We did not necessarily think of ourselves as executive producers or distributors, then… We were simply moved by a desire to introduce technologies to these venues, to different curators, to digital teams working in these locations, and of course to artists. 

So right from the start we focused on the big institutions. The first was the Tate Modern in London, where they were organizing an exhibition on Modigliani. The curator wanted to show the artist’s last studio in Paris, so we used VR to reconstruct it, while also bringing to the audience an interactive production that would allow them to touch the story of this great artist, his creative process, his creativity. 

From there we started to explore different kinds of partnerships: we partnered with the Venice Biennale for two years, bringing the work of French artist Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster. We also became an official partner of Art Basel in Hong Kong, where we commissioned works in VR from major artists such as Marina Abramovich, Anish Kapoor, Laurie Anderson.

Our journey of exploration began there and has taken us to, among others, the Louvre in Paris, with whom we created Mona Lisa: Beyond the Glass, to allow the audience to approach Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa in new ways, and most recently the Musée d’Orsay. 

What happened when COVID struck? 

COVID created some complications: for example, the V&A Museum’s exhibition on Alice in Wonderland, titled Alice: Curiouser and Curiouser, which we were producing, had to be postponed. However, it also opened up new opportunities. With museums closed, people realized for the first time that VR could allow them to experience this kind of content without going to a physical location that, at that time, they could not have access to.

That’s when we had the idea of launching the Curious Alice VR experience before the physical exhibition was actually running. It was the first time we moved in this direction, because normally the process was for the exhibition experience to go hand in hand with the virtual immersive experience. Of course at that time we were already working with online distribution through our VR platform VIVEPORT, so this choice was feasible. 

Compared to the Meta Store or Steam VR, at the time VIVEPORT was a small platform that hosted mostly art and cultural content that people rarely gave as much attention to as entertainment content. However, because of COVID people started to realize the value of having this kind of digital content so easily available. 

It was the beginning of a new trend: before, we had to go and knock on the doors of institutions, inform artists and curators of the existence of this technology. Suddenly people asked more and more for digital tools and immersive technologies, and that’s how we started to look more carefully at the distribution aspect, for example in the case of Curious Alice: after numerous requests from our users, we worked on an agreement with the museum for distribution and licensing. The art piece became available online after the temporary exhibition closed. The museum itself realized the potential of this operation, and for us it was a way to generate new revenue for both the museum and the VIVE Arts program and establish an effectively sustainable business model for the distribution of digital content. 

That said, one of the things that most characterizes VIVE Arts since its founding is the constant exploration of different productions, new collaborations and possibilities, with a focus on positioning ourselves differently depending on the specific project or partnership we are addressing. Sometimes we are co-producers, sometimes we are executive producers, sometimes we are sponsors, and sometimes we are commercial partners as well. Our goal is to always valorize the specific experience and what it can offer in terms of art to the public.

During your five years at VIVE Arts, but also through previous experiences, where have you perceived the biggest changes brought to art by new technologies?

I would say in institutions. Over the years I’ve noticed a big change on their part, particularly in their attitude toward immersive technologies. In 2016/17, we had to go to museums, organize very serious meetings and demonstration sessions for curators and sometimes museum directors to explain what VR was: most of them had no idea and had never even tried it. They were all quite reluctant to experiment with this new technology and, to be honest, I also saw very little digital technology inside museums at the time, whether for exhibitions or anything else. 

Also, at the beginning, VIVE Arts was one of the very few players in the market that was thinking about how to use digital technology in the arts and culture sectors. Over the years many technology companies have actually understood the power of these technologies-I’m thinking not only of XR, but also of NFTs, blockchain, today AI. Since the beginning we tried to introduce all these different innovative technologies into museums, and over time institutions have begun to really embrace these new directions and open up to the possibilities they offer.

What about the artists? Do you think their art or the way they make art has been influenced by new technologies? 

It is true that digital art has been around for decades, but I would say that over the years there have been strong changes in this regard as well. 

We have had the opportunity over the years to engage with many galleries and many artists. In the beginning, some were definitely interested in immersive technologies, but they saw them more as an experiment, which often didn’t lead to such sophisticated results. Then, over time, the exploration became more precise. I think of artworks like Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster’s for the Biennale: Dominique didn’t know anything about the technology, but she had a fascinating idea on how to use it and was collaborating with Lucid Realities to try and make it work. Within a short time, VR became one of the mediums of her creations and her artwork was later collected by the LUMA Foundation. 

If in the beginning, artists had to be educated about the technology, and they had to get a studio to help them bring it to life, today more and more artists, especially those of the younger generation, have the ability to create these virtual works of art themselves. 

Certainly, then, the development of hardware and  increasingly light and better quality standalone headsets, is also marking a profound change in artistic production.

Could you please share with us some examples of LBE successes on which VIVE Arts was involved?

Bringing works to institutions successfully is always the result of a joint effort. 

Our collaboration on La Palette de Van Gogh (Van Gogh’s Palette), for example, grew out of the ideas and ambitions of what was then the new head of digital at VIVE Arts and out of a dialogue carried on over time with Lucid Realities, with whom we had previously had a collaboration for Claude Monet, The Water Lily Obsession, developed by them for the Musée de l’Orangerie in Paris. When the project was presented, we expressed our interest in joining its production; we offered our technologies and expertise, and from there the partnership for this work began.

With Le Bal de Paris de Blanca Li the process was different. Behind Le Bal is the exceptional choreographer Blanca Li supported by Backlight, one of the best and most visionary immersive studios in France. We received the collaboration proposal from them, specifically, and it was an incredible proposal: ambitious, a bit crazy, even. Certainly extremely interesting, particularly in the way it presented the idea of multiple users, but also technically challenging.

The idea of a performing art piece was undoubtedly exciting for us because we had always been interested in seeing how performing art could be placed in a museum or exhibition. When they created the first chapter, we were invited to see it in their studio with our Chairwoman. She also fell in love with the project, so we decided to support it. 

This all happened in the early days of Le Bal. After it won the award at the Venice Immersive, it started its world tour, and that’s when VIVE Arts became their partner for distribution and for the tournée itself. 

So in this particular case, our initial role changed over time: at first we were more like co-producers and we offered financial support for the development. Then, when the experience was taken to Asia, to China, to Taipei we switched to the role of distributor. 

Over the years we have established many partnerships and collaborations, not only with museums, but also with studios, producers, production companies, and artists, and what I can tell you is that each production is definitely unique, both in terms of the path it takes and the way we approach it.

VIVE Arts’ latest two endeavors are Sculpture Park, the solo exhibition by multidisciplinary artist Xavier Veilhan at Perrotin Shanghai, and Dr Libby Heaney’s Heartbreak and Magic at Somerset House. How did you approach them?

Basically, we’ve been working on commissions since the beginning, with Art Basel in Hong Kong, with the Venice Biennale. However, one thing we’ve always aimed for is to go beyond commissioning a work to exhibit at events. In fact, we want to be part of and help create an ecosystem to support artists, to create artwork, and leave it to the gallery to display the work, promote it, sell it. 

So we started talking directly with the galleries. With Perrotin it was a long conversation, which took quite some time to concretize. In the beginning we had a very good meeting with the director of their gallery in Paris, who recommended Xavier, because he was very interested in technology at the time. We had some interesting exchanges of ideas that were followed by a long exploration phase. Eventually we finished the work and were able to exhibit it in Shanghai last year. 

The idea is that VR is itself a work of art, but one that requires a specific approach: at the beginning we would always talk to curators at museums to create pieces that will be then exhibited elsewhere. At the same time, we can create a piece for the galleries, so that distribution and sales can go hand in hand with touring opportunities to museums and other venues. The good thing about VR is that it is possible to exhibit a work in several places at once, which facilitates its distribution.

With Libby Heaney’s Heartbreak and Magic the work we did was slightly different and was more about the institutional aspect, because our office in London is located in Somerset House. 

Every project really starts out differently, but the result is always wonderful!

Audiences love these kinds of experiences. Do you think they are more attracted to the artist’s name, the content or the technology used? What is your perception in this regard?

For every project or collaboration we do, we want the technologies we use to become invisible. If that happens, then I consider the operation a success. 

I don’t think it’s the technology that fascinates the audience, in fact. I think ultimately the heart of what we do is the creation process, the content, the whole experience that our users live. It’s about giving the audience something different, something they have not seen or tried before. 

When you go into a museum, the experience of looking at a painting hanging on a wall may be familiar to you… but going into a virtual world is not. It completely changes your perception of the artwork, the way you see things, the way you receive the story that is told to you. I think that is what it’s all about. At VIVE Arts we want to use technology to offer audiences a different way of enjoying art and culture and that is what we try to do with every single experience we work on.

Have you noticed any change in the way art curators perceive virtual technologies today? Do you think only the big names are ready to face them or could smaller institutions and museums also approach these art forms in a concrete way? 

I think it’s a matter of strategy, rather than size of the institution. 

One of the feedbacks we get most often is about the cost of the hardware needed to host certain works. In my opinion, I think the real problem is not the cost but the lack of concrete thinking about what that technology can mean for your institution.

For every exhibition space you build, you know that you have to take into consideration a whole range of things: the infrastructure, the cost for lighting, for projection, for whatever it takes to make the venue work. If in your vision you take into consideration the idea of also approaching digital technology, opening up to younger generations and bringing something new to different audiences, then you need to do that through a precise strategy. One that is also very concrete.

It is not just a matter of asking for the funds to equip yourself with new hardware and tools-those are the basis from which to move, certainly, but there’s so much more to it! It is essential to build a team that understands how to operate with the technology, to approach the change from a curatorial perspective, and to define an effective program. All of that is even more important than equipment that is bound to become more affordable over time anyway.

Technical issues and deployment has always been one of the biggest LBE challenges for cultural venues. Does the new standalone VR headset generation respond to it?

The progress of the all-in-one headset is a great help. When we started working with museums, all exhibitions required a lot of effort and also a lot of space, because you had to have huge machines connected to PCs, quite heavy headsets, cables taking up quite a large area. To start an immersive exhibit was definitely a complicated operation.

With standalone headsets you don’t have this specific problem, so the work becomes partially easier than before. At the same time I think it is important to consider the design of the content you want to show and the way you want to show it: museums need to open their eyes and be more creative, to think about what is possible. It is no longer a matter of using bricks and walls to give the audience an experience. There are so many possibilities offered by digital technology, with its pros and cons, and, as the rest, the concept of space itself certainly needs to be redefined in some way as well.

What directions do you think distribution and circulation of immersive works is taking today, in particular in relation to contemporary art?

First, they are definitely becoming quite common. At the same time, there are so many different formats coming up that it’s hard to make an accurate estimate of what will happen in the future. 

Our platform addresses how to distribute single titles that have a smaller-scale location-based structure, but other studios have created different kinds of platforms.

I think of Excurio, a French studio that produced, in collaboration with GEDEON Experience, the exhibition at the Musée d’Orsay Impressionism in VR: A Time Travel to 1874 Paris: they already have their own solutions, that they can adapt to different content and different titles.

Similarly Backlight has created a technological system for Le Bal that can now be redesigned to accommodate several types of experiences.

All of these platforms can host various content and in doing so offer an easier and, more importantly, more efficient distribution system. Any new title that arrives on that specific platform can be screened automatically, in a way that reminds me a bit of the cinema system. 

Many XR technologies right now actually have a model that is similar to that of cinema, but which is at the same time infinitely more versatile. If cinema in its evolution ended up creating a single type of vision (the viewer sitting there plus a screen where I project the film), VR technology has prompted many studios to create their own “cinema” format, which can also better fit one space over another and physical environments with different characteristics. This allows curators to approach only those immersive experiences that best suit their needs in terms of spaces and formats.  

This is in terms of offline distribution. But if we go to look at online distribution, that’s when further horizons open up. I think that the online distribution, today, still focuses mainly on gaming, entertainment, and individual titles. But again we are talking about a developing system, which will surely become even more diversified as new headsets enter the market. Not only those from HTC, but also from Meta, Apple and so on. 

What suggestions would you give to artists who want to approach the immersive world, so that their creations find a distribution channel? 

Production requirements are quite expensive and always require a lot of resources and funding. What I would encourage artists to do, if they are starting a new project or even just thinking about an idea for a project, is to think early on about the business model for distributing their finished work. It is critical that they ask themselves what is the right audience and also that they explore the market and the world of immersive events to understand what is offered in terms of venues, for example. 

Right now, globally, there are many locations and institutions that are positioning themselves to offer their audiences additional exhibitions, perhaps immersive experiences. These venues are constantly looking for new titles. So even before you start creating your work, you should already think about where to host it and about the right partner for its distribution. You can plan for this as early as the production stage. It is a choice that will make artists’ lives and their creative process incredibly easier.