NGV's Yayoi Kusama: The 21st Century Debate of Art as Spectacle

If you've been on this side of the hemisphere for the last 6 months (especially if you live in Victoria), you will have absolutely, most definitely, can bet Rhonda the RAV on it, heard of Yayoi Kusama.

And if you haven't, where have you bloody been?

Yayoi Kusama is a 96-year old Japanese artist who has had an immense international career over the span of 8 decades.

Yep, you read that right - a NINETY-SIX year old artist who is still alive and kicking (or sculpting, for that matter).

She mainly creates sculptures and installations, but she is notoriously known for her obsession with dots. Please find exemplary examples below:

Oh yeah - she's dots-mad.

Kusama is considered one of the world's most celebrated living artists, with her polka-dotted pumpkins, polka-dotted flowers, and you guessed it, polka-dotted gigantic octopus-looking things being recognised all over the world!

And the National Gallery of Victoria saw the potential, because oh boy, they spent the big bucks on this one.

Splashing out a staggering 8-figure investment, this 'world-premiere blockbuster exhibition' ran from December 2024 to April 2025 and showcased more than 180 of Kusama's works.

The NGV most definitely wanted to get their money's worth because honestly, if I didn't know about Yayoi Kusama before, I definitely knew about Yayoi Kusama after moving to Melbourne from the UK in October.

She was everywhere! It instantly reminded me of the extent in which Warner Bros marketed Barbie to the point where Grill'd came out with their own pink burger...

But honestly! The NGV even covered trees with dots!

So this artist, this exhibit, and her extensive 8-decade career seemed pretty big.

So naturally, I was curious.

I had never witnessed a gallery push an exhibition like this before.

It was at the centre of SO many conversations - with most people debating whether going to the exhibit on a Sunday would lead to a real-life adaptation of the wildebeest stampede scene in The Lion King.

I'm here for a good time not a long time, so I decided to go on a Sunday.

Aaanddd what a stupid decision that was.

Because MY GOODNESS! Going into that exhibition was like entering Glastonbury.

Complete and utter march of the penguins.

Queues everywhere.

Mass crowds in front of one artwork.

It was hot.

It was loud.

Do you feel overstimulated reading this? Well, welcome to the club!

I actually started to feel faint in there - which sounds dramatic but it was the first time I had been to the NGV since moving to a (comparatively) quieter regional town, making it a slight shock to the system.

Can you believe that I spent a year living in London not too long ago?

In my defense, the exhibition had been up for 3 months at this point, how many more people could there be?!

Anyway, once I got over the absolute mass crowds of people, heat exhaustion, and losing my hearing, the exhibition was pretty interesting!

To summarise, it was split into two halves - one half looked at her earlier works and the second half looked at more of her contemporary practice. The second half in particular was extremely immersive, with several crowds of people queuing up to experience one of her Infinity Rooms.

The best way I can describe one of these 'Infinity Rooms' is a peep-show-like chamber where you are surrounded by mirrors covered in dots to make it look like you are immersed within the galaxy, kinda like this:

Now I could give you a comprehensive review on this exhibit, my thoughts and feelings on the artworks, and what I learnt about the magnificent Kusama - and that was actually my intention for this blog post.

But this exhibition reignited an internal debate that I have been having for the last couple of years.

You see, whilst walking around this exhibit, I was immediately reminded of the rise of extremely immersive digital art experiences over the last five years:

I remember going to Van Gogh Alive in Edinburgh a few years ago, and then Monet & Friends at The Lume in Melbourne.

They were both extremely similar in their formats: gigantic vacant spaces with huge video projections across the floors, walls and ceilings, showcasing infamous works by infamous artists alongside some narration and music.

The sites would also include some dedicated rooms with written information and some children's activities, as well as a smaller immersive room where you could touch and smell objects.

Let me dig into the archive and see what I can find!

I don't know if you have ever been to one of these experiences, but I really enjoyed them. I couldn't think of a reason why they would be disliked, until I had a conversation with a couple of my MA tutors about them last year:

'I don't like them'

'They have turned art into a spectacle, as a mere form of entertainment similar to sitting in front of the TV'

'They dilute the value of going to see art in the flesh'

'People won't appreciate art anymore because of them'

Sorrryyyy MA tutors! Kinda dropping you in it, but I found these comments FASCINATING.

I really couldn't find a fault with these immersive art experiences, yet it turns out, experts in the contemporary art field had nothing good to say about them, and felt they were having a negative impact on the visual arts sector.

So I did some further digging into the topic, and it turns out that its a pretty polarised debate. Here is the consensus from various articles on Google:

Pros:

• They attract visitors who might not typically engage with traditional art forms, broadening the appeal and understanding of art

• The interactive nature of immersive art changes the way audiences consume and engage with it, promoting active participation over passive observation. This shift can encourage a deeper, more personal connection to the artwork, potentially altering public perceptions of art and its role in society (urgh, yes please)

• They can aid in breaking down geographical and socio-economic barriers that can traditionally limit audience reach (HALLELUJAH)

• They are designed to be shared experiences, which can strengthen community bonds and stimulate social interaction - very cute!

Cons:

• An over-reliance on digital technology could overshadow fundamental artistic skills and expressions (Kinda understand, but I do think the designs of these exhibitions take a fair bit of artistic skill too!)

• The emphasis on spectacle over substance may detract from the deeper, contemplative aspects of art engagement, reducing art to mere entertainment (Can art not be both?)

• Immersive art may dilute the authenticity and intrinsic value of traditional art forms (Getting into some murky water here, because who is to say that these art forms hold more value over other forms?)

• The artists never intended for their works to be portrayed in this way

Would Van Gogh be turning in his grave? Well, I think he'd be pretty ticked off regardless considering nobody took a second glance at his paintings until after he died.

I understand the critiques, I do. I feel like most of the 'cons' are pretty valid.

Ultimately though, I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a huge fan of the rise in immersive art experiences. I think they attract a much more diverse crowd than I've ever seen in your traditional art institutes.

At Kusama's exhibit, I saw toddlers and babies interacting with the works (that they were allowed to touch, of course), I saw groups of teenagers, young couples, big families, grandparents, and honestly everybody in between!

I really did find it extremely heartwarming to see toddlers crawling through these spaces, just knowing that they are having the TIME of their little sensory lives!

Don't get me wrong, I love the more 'traditional' museums and galleries, but what I love more is art being accessible to as many people as possible.

I can guarantee that 90% of the people who went to Monet & Friends in Melbourne didn't and don't have the resources to just nip over to Paris to see the Le Pavé de Chailly.

So this really feels like the next best thing!

I'm standing firm, and I'm waving the flag for the rise of digital immersive art experiences.

I don't think they take away from our beloved museums and galleries - I think they provide another avenue for more people to be able to learn, access, and enjoy different elements of art history.

Who knows, maybe these traditional spots could take a leaf out of these immersive experiences and incorporate it into their own programming? Controversial, I know.

That being said, the Yayoi Kusama exhibit broke the record for the highest attended ticketed art exhibition in Australian history (570, 537 visitors in 4 months!), so maybe the NGV is onto something...

I'm so very interested to hear what you, the reader, think on this - so if you have made it this far, thanks first of all for reading my spiel on the matter, but also please let me know which side of the fence you think you sit on.

For some reason, this blog post took me 2 months to write (charge me with the highest degree of immense procrastination) and I do have that annoying brain malfunction where I can't work on a new piece of writing until I've finished the last one...

So fingers crossed it isn't another 2 months before I grace your minds with my art rambles again! But for now, cheerio!