Big projections of Picasso’s art lack substance

When it comes to the trendy genre of digitally projected, immersive art “experiences,” I’ve given them the benefit of the doubt.

In March, I gave “Immersive Van Gogh” a genuinely good review, while also noting that watching its projected paintings come to life to an overwhelming soundtrack was probably not for everyone. The Asian Art Museum’s “Continuity,” which consists of all-original projected art created by the Tokyo collective teamLab, still has me singing its praises for how new and interactive it felt. (Both are still on view, with the latter set to close

Feb. 28.)

But as I’ve seen this trend grow to include the work of dead artists such as Leonardo da Vinci,

Claude Monet,

Gustav Klimt and, soon, Frida Kahlo plundered for these attractions, I’ve become weary. Do we really need amusement park versions of great works by artists who are not alive to offer their own visions to the experience, or give their consent?

For me, the last straw was “Imagine Picasso,” which opened Wednesday at Skylight at the Armory. Pablo Picasso is sacred in his genius. The man changed how we saw art through his different creative periods, especially Cubism, and his work still feels revolutionary when you view a really great Picasso exhibition. Even 49 years after his death, there is still much to learn about Picasso. If you need proof, just look to the de Young Museum’s 2021 “Calder-Picasso” exhibition, in which his paintings were smartly juxtaposed against pieces by sculptor Alexander Calder.

“Imagine Picasso,” which has the involvement of the Picasso family and features more than 200 of his works, felt more like a hack edit job than an immersive experience, with his innovations chopped up and sold for digitally projected parts. Chief among my disappointments was how frustrating it was to be in the presence of so many great Picasso images without seeing most of them in full and feeling like nothing new is being said about his work.

As in other immersive shows, Picasso’s images are projected in the Skylight’s space — on walls, angular structures and even on the floor — with a mostly instrumental soundtrack changing with each projection series. The result is a lot of very strange, close-up views of details of paintings blown up to enormous scale.

When I’ve looked at pictures of “Guernica” or “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon,” for instance,

I’ve never thought: “If only I could see just that one corner 20 feet high.” The way the images are cropped and mixed across the walls, it was a challenge to know exactly what I was seeing at first. These choices didn’t offer a new perspective or enlighten me about any aspect of Picasso, they just made me wish I was in a museum where the images might be smaller but at least they’re static and complete.

That said, one of the things I do like about the idea of these projected shows is that they have the potential to bring great works of art to places that may not have a museum in the vicinity. But if the only option is seeing nonsensical edits of masterpieces, you’re better off checking out an art book from the library.

Better yet, if you’re in San Francisco, visit the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, which has 14 Picassos in its collection. Or the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, which has an astounding 1,294 works, including two paintings, 16 ceramic works, three sculptures and 1,274 works on paper (check the museums’ websites for what’s currently on view).

With tickets starting at $39.99 for “Imagine Picasso” and the forthcoming “Immersive Frida Kahlo,” you can spend a fraction of that to see an actual Picasso at a museum.

Some have accused these immersive attractions of being vulgar. “Imagine Picasso” wasn’t inventive enough to be vulgar; it just felt commercial and underwhelming. The emotion Picasso’s work can inspire was missing at this experience — unless you count my horror at seeing his “The Old Guitarist” on the back of an $80 hoodie.

“Imagine Picasso?” No thanks. I’d rather see the real thing.