e-Pulsar - Oct

e-Pulsar Oct - Nov 97

The DEATH of Space Art?

Edited by James Wappel

"Radiant Panorama" By Joy Day

Radiant Panorama

On September 18th, 1997, Joan Lee posted the following message on the listserve:

For several years, I have enjoyed reading the monthly Astronomy and Space magazines, including Kalmbach Publishing's "Astronomy". Up to now, I particularly liked this magazine for the striking Space Art work used to illustrate some of the articles (by Michael Carroll, amongst others). To a large extent, my interest in Space Art grew from this magazine. From the first few months with the new format, I’ve got the impression that Spaceart is now seen as less important by the Editorial staff. It no longer appears on the cover. To a large extent, it seems to have been replaced by photographs. When it is featured, it’s a small picture which can easily be overlooked.

This started what I will call the Space Art Dying/Undying debate, which brought comments from many members. I have tried to take some of the highlights to show how this discussion progressed. Sorry - space doesn’t permit us to include every member’s thoughts on this.

Several members echoed Joan’s sentiments on this issue. Bob Eggleton wrote:

Ultimately, it’s magazine distributors and sales people who determine what goes ON (and in) a magazine. And the traditional look was "out" and a new, 90’s look was in (look at Science Fiction Age as opposed to the decadent digest sized ANALOG. SF AGE wins with newsstand space). And now, you see Astronomy right next to DISCOVER in airports, train stations, etc... places where it wasn’t before. I bet newsstand sales are very much up for Kalmbach, and that’s the bottom line. With the new, clear Mars pix and after Hubble got fixed and was blowing us away with The Eagle Nebula, et al - I saw the handwriting on the wall with regard to the commercial market for Space Art - it was dying.

Chris Butler advised members to avoid duplicating what could be found in NASA archives:

My feelings regarding the new "look" of Astronomy magazine is perhaps cynical. I don’t think deep creative impulses are inducing the editors to ditch space art. NASA art is free, and I suspect that is the end of the debate right there. IAAA members seeking to make professional careers out of art might be well served to remember the competition from royalty-free sources. I make it a point not to duplicate images that can be had cheaply via NASA sources, as it is a lot harder to sell these. Space artists, I think, do best when they illustrate things NASA has NO images of.

Mark Garlick suggested that space art faced considerable competition in the public eye:

Could be because the consumer simply doesn’t want to see space art. I don’t know about the US, but this would seem to be the case in the UK. Just before the relatively new astronomy magazine, Modern Astronomer, was launched here seven months ago, the publishers sent out questionnaires asking people to pick what they wanted to see in the new mag. Among things on offer were Hubble images, space art, and about twenty or thirty other things. Result? Space art, weakest preference (by far), Hubble shots, highest preference.

Other IAAA members agreed with this, and discussed how we could regain the public’s interest. Armand Cabrera offered this suggestion from the writings of Andrew Loomis:

"If we are to carry our craft forward, increasing the volume of good art to anything like the proportionate use of photography, it will not be through the imitation of photography, nor even through technical ability. It will come through greater imagination on the part of the artists. To try to compete with the camera on it’s own ground is futile. We cannot match its precision of detail, there is little we can add. You may be certain that the greatest pictorial value lies in all the things the camera cannot do. Let us incorporate the emotional qualities sadly lacking in photographic illustration. Let our product be as different from the photo as our individual handwriting is from type. If we make the drawing values and color sound and convincing, from then on we need not compete. From that point the public actually prefers art to photography."

This statement was taken up by the rest of the listserve. Some members suggested that IAAA artists should think about more ‘imaginative’ subject matter. In addition, a debate began discussing the pros and cons of doing art based on Solar system objects vs. ‘unexplored’ areas, such as the new planets and phenomena being discovered daily.

Don Davis had this to say to the group:

First of all, it might be a bit premature to read a trend from a few issues of Astronomy. The importance of paying clients to any field of art is obvious, but I still find the best paintings are done as a labor of love and not for money. Just do your absolute best with every job and they’ll likely come back for more. The exotic realities we can share with our insights and skills will always have a place to be seen.

Our fearless leader (Dave Hardy) reminded all of us that there is still plenty of wonder left in the Solar system:

How can anyone say that Mars, with its canyons, river beds and volcanoes, or Io, or Europa (with its possibility of life under the ice), or Miranda, or Triton, or Titan . . . are just lifeless rocks!!! They may be DIFFERENT from the SF and Bonestellian visions, but they are sure as hell exciting. I for one still want to go there! Since I can’t, I still paint them.

A discussion over venues, public interest in space art in general, and the use of new techniques emerged from the "Space art Dying/Undying" thread.

This from Arthur Wood:

The "mainstream" art world does not consider space art - in its most popular manifestation - to be a particularly serious art form. I believe there is a lot of territory out there ripe and ready for our message - but I don’t think what most of do is appropriate for that territory. Though most of us thrive on technology and the subjects of our artworks are futuristic - our general approach to art making is actually pretty conservative and lacks innovation when compared to what is going on in the broad art world today. Maybe there are some advantages to maintaining a "space art niche" that some members are so proud of - but we should face up to the realities of competition - be it Hollywood, Hubble, Bryce or the opportunist artist in NYC recycling CNN images at the Whitney.

Kim Poor responded with his own observations of gallery vs. planetariums/museums:

There also seems to be real differences in galleries (in particular) between the Old World and New. In America, 90% of galleries go out of business the first year. 90% of the remaining 10% go out of business the second year. Most are Mom and Pop businesses like ours. They seem to be somewhat more stable and upper crust in Europe, if I hear right. Here, there are a few of what I would call "New York" type galleries around that cater to the goatee and beret set, and that is what I picture European galleries to be like. People in those galleries buy art rather than admit they don’t understand it. I’ve never sold an item for $8000. Most American galleries are glorified poster shops.

Finally, several project ideas were suggested by members to regenerate interest in space art. Some of the proposed items were: a color IAAA magazine, a color Pulsar newsletter, and even a children’s book. Most of the projects were deemed either too expensive or difficult to sell. The children’s book may still be undertaken, with IAAA members submitting the writing and artwork.

Joel Hagen added this:

I agree with MC and others on the value of children’s books. Most of my favorite books on Space Travel are children’s books. Certainly in the 50’s they had a corner on the best illustrations and visualizations about what the universe and the future held in store for us. With the wealth of talent in the group, a children’s book of that talent would be a rewarding project. Such a project probably needs an author or an editor from within the group to initiate it as an individual.

On September 25th, Joan Lee posted one of the final messages on the Space Art Dying/Undying theme. It was very appropriate, as it seemed to echo the sentiments of many IAAA members:

I don’t believe Space Art is dying, anymore than public interest in Astronomy (e.g.. considerable interest in Comet Hale-Bopp, following news coverage). It’s more a need to improve people’s awareness and appeal to a wider audience.

Well, I hope this captured the spirit of the debate. I think all IAAA members believe that space ‘art’, in whatever form it may take, will continue long into the future.