Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T01:23:20.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Defense of Space Art: The Role of the Artist in Space Exploration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Roger F. Malina
Roger F. Malina*
Affiliation:
Journal LEONARDO, 2020 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, U.S.A. and Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Artworks will be built in space as the frequency and range of space missions increase. Artists have proposed artworks to be installed in space and have worked with space agencies to begin planning for such projects; a few space art projects have been completed. It is argued that artworks should be reviewed with the same constraints as all other space artifacts. It is unlikely that artworks will ever pose the kind of environmental threat that already exists from scientific, commercial and military activities; the cultural value of creating some space art balances the associated costs and risks. Artworks visible to global audiences can be conceived and have been proposed; it is these proposals that have concerned astronomers. Public space art should be subject to a process of public scrutiny similar to that of earth-based public art works. Most space art will involve interdisciplinary teams of artists, scientists and engineers; these projects offer the possibility of artists providing novel ideas and approaches that will be of interest in other applications. Artists in the past have played crucial roles in promoting space exploration, in literature, film and the plastic arts. They have also explored the negative aspects and risks. In the future it is inevitable and desirable that artmaking be included in planned space activities.

Type
Space Debris
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 112: Light Pollution, Radio Interference, and Space Debris , 1991 , pp. 145 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of the Pacific 1991

References

References and Notes

(1) Pridgeon, J., “The Artistic Potential of the Space Station Program; Report to the Space Station Task Force for Innovative Utilization of the Space Station Program.” NASA Contract NASW-3746 Final Report, 1983.Google Scholar
(2) Polansky, Larry, “Jim Tenney and Space Travel,” Perspectives of New Music, 25, pp.436–438,1987.Google Scholar
(3) Malina, F. J., “On the Visual Fine Arts in the Space Age,” Leonardo, 3, pp.323–325,1970 (3).Google Scholar
(4) Goldring, Elizabeth, “Desert Sun/Desert Moon and the Sky Art Manifesto,” Leonardo, 20, pp.339–348, 1987.Google Scholar
(5) Notarbolo, Albert, “Some Proposals for Art Objects in Extraterrestrial Space,” Leonardo, 8, pp.139–141,1975.Google Scholar
(6) Davis, Joe, “The Last Getaway Specials: NASA and the Artist,” Leonardo, 1989, in press.Google Scholar
(7) Burgess, Lowry, “Burgess: The Quiet Axis,” (Montreal: Precare, 1987).Google Scholar
(8) An Eiffel Tower in Space; Competition Rules, Paris, 1986.Google Scholar
(9) Compte, Pierre, “Leonardo in Orbit: Satellite Art,” Leonardo, 20, p. 17–21,1987. See also Compte, Pierre, “Reply to Jean Claude Pecker,” Leonardo, 20, p.298,1987.Google Scholar
(10) Coles, and Jefferson, A., “The Space Chronometer Finalist in the Eiffel Competition,” Leonardo, in press, 1989.Google Scholar
(11)Letter from James Pridgeon to the author, July 9, 1988. Pridgeon identifies three issues raised by astronomers: a) Light pollution, potential damage to sensitive ground-based detectors; b) Domino theory: One space sculpture may not be a problem, but there will be no way to prevent gradual worsening of the problem; c) Space is a natural wilderness that should not be polluted by unnecessary human artifacts.Google Scholar
(12) Clarke, Arthur C., letter to the author, March 24, 1988. Proposal submitted in response to the Call for Proposals for “Project 2001: A monument to celebrate the third millenium,” Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
(13) Murdin, Paul, “Art vs Science: The Battle for the Stars,” New Scientist, Vol. 113, 1551, p. 60–61,1987. See also Murdin, Paul, The Observatory, 107, pp. 181–182 for a discussion.Google Scholar
(14) Pecker, J. C., “Comments on ’Leonardo in Orbit: Satellite Art’,” Leonardo, 20, p.298,1987.Google Scholar
(15) Orion, Ezra, “Sculpture in the Solar System: From geologically based earthworks to astro-sculpture,” Leonardo, 18, pp.157–160,1985.Google Scholar
(16) Seidel, Miriam, “The Space/Time Continuum Revisited,” Lightworks, 7, pp.40–45,1985.Google Scholar
(17) Brix, Tomas and Brix, Michal, “On Modular Structures on the Moon,” Leonardo, 5, pp.43–45,1972.Google Scholar
(18)See Leonardo, , 21, p.205,1988. The Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture is located in Room 122 ARC, University of Houston, 4800 Calhoun, Houston, TX 77004, USA.Google Scholar
(19) Galloway, Eilene, “The Present Status of the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” presented at the International Colloquium on Environmental Aspects of Activities in Outer Space, Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany, May 1988.Google Scholar
(20) Philippe, Jean-Marc, “L’Art Spatiale et ses Enjeux,” presentation to the UNESCO Conference on Culture and Space, November 3, 1986. Philippe, Jean-Marc also presented his concept for a Space Art Ethics Committee at the European Conference on Philosophy and the Franco-European Cultural Summit in 1986. It was proposed that the Committee would be based at the European Academy of Sciences, Arts and Literature in Paris.Google Scholar