Still Art : A Conflict of Immersion

In an era dominated by immersive art, where stories unfold through sound, motion, and interactivity, what happens to the silent allure of a painting or a photograph and why do we so many people view one inherently less immersive than the other beyond the technological aspects.

These static forms of art often struggle to hold their ground in a sea of fast-moving, high engagement content and art. While far from obsolete and still holding a prominent role in culture, i often ask myself what the future looks like for still art and why its ultimately niche when we look at it in a "fine art" capacity.

Is it a competition? Not in the traditional sense, no, But when it comes to commanding someone’s focus in the attention economy, it absolutely is. Its often much easier to draw someone in with motion, sound, or reactive elements. This is not necessarily a bad thing. What fascinates me is how our culture decides what is or isn't worth immersing ourselves in, simply based on the medium through which it is presented.

In today’s digital landscape, shaped by platforms like Instagram, YouTube Shorts, and TikTok, attention has become a scarce and fragile currency. But even before this change, still art required something more from its viewers. It asked for patience, It asked for introspection, it asked the viewer to meet the artist halfway, to slow down and sit with an image or canvas, to become a part of it in order to receive a glimpse of the way the artist saw the world.

Outside of bold, colour-rich work that shocks the senses and demands a moment of pause within photography and painting or something hauntingly dramatic, much of photography and painting asks for a quieter contemplation. It invites a kind of inward immersion.

These works can often demand contemplation in conjunction with imagination in order to venture deeper into the world they present.

One of the reasons I fell in love with conceptual photography is because of how it opens the door to possibility. A single image can speak volumes without saying a word, its capable of conveying the depth of entire worlds in one frame. It can create space for emotion, memory, and metaphor to unfold. But as a photographer in this era of technologically nuanced and dense art such as animation, gaming and film... I often find myself asking is a still frame enough? Is it the artwork that lacks immersive power, or is it our culture that struggles to engage with experiences that dont offer immediate gratification?

Maybe it is the latter. Maybe its both.

Taking things even further within the realm of digital art, the value and perception toward still art is significantly different than how a physical piece would be perceived.

There's less incentive to stop and stare at an art piece in a social media feed, and over the decades so much of the value in static art was directly tied to its tangibility.

But despite this change art is now more accessible to find than it ever has been, so culturally whether we realize it or not we're having to redefine and reassess what Still Art means to us.

Static art is not incapable of immersion. It simply offers a different kind of engagement. It doesn't always demand your reaction, but rather your presence and patience. And in a time when so much is fighting for our attention, choosing to sit with something as dimensionally simplistic and yet immersive as a photograph, painting or sculpture might be one of the most powerful forms of immersion we have left.