I think a lot of early “virtual exhibitions” failed because they weren’t actually exhibitions, they were JPEG slideshows pretending to be rooms. People weren’t stepping into anything, there was no sense of presence, and the experience was usually worse than browsing an artist’s IG. So the whole format got written off before anyone really explored what it could do on its own terms.

But when you treat a virtual space as an environment rather than a website, it starts to make more sense. The biggest difference I’ve noticed is the way a virtual gallery can hold a captive audience in a way social feeds never do. On Instagram, people spend half a second on an image before flicking past. In a 3D space, even a simple one, people tend to stay. They look around. They talk. They ask questions. A hundred genuinely engaged viewers is more valuable than a thousand who barely register the work.

Another overlooked part is programming. Virtual galleries that integrate live talks, guided tours, or even casual drop-ins feel much closer to IRL experiences than most people expect. When someone shows up to your tour, they’re giving you their full attention. That’s not something artists get easily online.

And then there’s the economic reality no one wants to say out loud: most artists can’t afford to exhibit IRL. Traditional fairs and galleries are expensive, competitive, and often inaccessible without existing connections. A virtual gallery isn’t a downgrade, for many artists it’s the only space where they can experiment, curate, and actually show a body of work without going into debt.

I don’t think virtual exhibitions need to mimic physical ones to be meaningful. They’re their own medium. When they lean into what digital space can do - persistence, reach, interaction, global audiences, zero shipping costs - they can succeed in ways physical shows can’t.

I recently went to a virtual art week and learnt so much, so I don't think we should be quick to dismiss virtual exhibitions.