Martha Fiennes the British filmmaker, artist and writer. She was on the jury for the Immersive Art Price at Cannes Film Festival 2025 . We offer her new interview:
Irina Vernichenko, «Art& Signatures» : Is immersive art closer to digital art or to cinema?
Martha Fiennes : Do you know what I mean by a Venn diagram? I think it all overlaps to some extent. However, the immersive selection at Cannes this year did feel somewhat closer to the cinematic experience than certain other kinds of digital art. All the pieces were designed to be viewed for a length of time. Half an hour being the minimum… So because of that time factor experience, I would say they felt more cinematic. However, there is certainly digital art that does not invite the viewer to experience the unfoldment of story or storytelling. Certainly for the selection at Cannes storytelling was an intrinsic aspect of the selected works and therefore it leant further into Cinema. This makes sense because the Cannes Film Festival is clearly associated with excellence in Film- which clearly implies story telling!
I V : What are the names in this field of art?
M F : What are the names of this Field in art? I think this landscape is emerging so much that it has not yet settled into the understanding of a ‘canon’ yet … i e who the important people are in terms of creating ground breaking work. Obviously at the international level there will be many names of artist working with this emerging technology , although I do not believe I have that list! But it will exist. I would say in the west, Bill Viola is / was the ‘grandfather’ of this kind of expression & inquiry. He was an artist but he worked in the filmmaking practice — but not in the way that the film industry works, but in a much more conceptual way. He is an important inspiration.
In an entirely different manner is the Turkish artist / group? PAK — who was pioneering with NFT’s and worked to great success with Sotherby’s creating online digital art. I would say this kind of work is not really about storytelling… It was more conceptual and placed great emphasis on (massively successful) transactional engagement with the audience.
I V : What were your criteria for choosing the best piece?
M F : I think our jury were quite united in our approach. We wanted the piece to speak to us as human beings first and foremost. I think we generally perceive the technology as being part of the media — as being a critical component in relaying the message, so to speak — however exciting tech is, it is still a tool.
As filmmakers and practitioners we are always working with technology. As technology changes and becomes ever more sophisticated it still a tool with which to engage because I believe that ultimately human beings are the important ones; we are the makers and the perceivers — and we make work for other human beings to experience, we do not make work for AI intelligences or robots!
I V : Who won the contest?
M F : The contest was won by Michel van der Aa. The work, a VR piece with interactive AI elements — is called “From Dust”
I V : What kind of images emerge? Are they movie images?
M F : None of the works were about ‘pure’ cinematic / photographic / directly ‘real’ representational experiences. Naturally there was a great deal of filmed material in many of the works and alternatively, quite a few of the works were made up of animations. However, the experience of such works overall is about inviting a different kind of viewer engagement than that of looking at a rectangular screen as we do in films, over a specified length of time. VR gives us 360 degrees and gives us choice in what to look at around oneself. One piece invited you to engage with a computer in a way that was like hacking into the deep web. Another piece invited you to get into the back of a taxi (literally into a rusty old car) where the taxi driver in the front was an AI intelligence and you could have a conversation with them. So lots of the traditional modes were being broken and yet within that there were elements of the filmed experience.
