Originally published in a 2006 issue of Fifty3 Magazine (Volume 7 Issue 2) Neil Parmar’s article “Art in Space” shines light onto the seemingly unusual crossroads between space travel and art.
In this issue of From the Archives, we examine a timeline of people’s efforts to bring art to space and create art in the vacuum.
Space has been an art subject for centuries, but prior to 1969 little had been done to actually bring art into space in any capacity, let alone have it exhibited or created in space. Since then, numerous artist groups and space agencies have collaborated on bringing art to space, while also exploring the topic of space travel through artistic media. This article will chronicle some of the most significant explorations of this union between artistic expression and space travel.
Let’s start in 1969 with Andy Warhol’s penis, which alongside a straight line drawn by Robert Rauschenberg, an image of Mickey Mouse by Claes Oldenberg and geometric designs by John Chamberlain, Forrest Myers and David Novros was sent into orbit on a small ceramic tile carried aboard the Apollo 12. This ceramic tile, which was only three quarters of an inch by half an inch in size and entitled “The Moon Museum” is considered to be the first art object be flown into orbit.
Image Courtesy of History Detectives on PBS
Three years later, in 1971, Paul Van Hoeydonck’s 3.3 inch aluminium sculpture of an astronaut in a spacesuit found itself aboard the Apollo 15, which carried the object to the moon on August 1st that same year. The figurine was accompanied by a plaque commemorating 14 men that had died in the advancement of space exploration and is still on the moon today.
After Fallen Astronaut, no new artworks were sent into orbit until 1984, when Joseph McShane’s sculpture S.P.A.C.E. was brought into orbit on the space shuttle Challenger. S.P.A.C.E. included a system of spheres with attached valves that were opened in the vacuum of space and resealed, essentially capturing the atmosphere and zero gravity of space to be brought back to earth.
In 1986, Howard Wishnow conceived of an art conservation experiment entitled “Vertical Horizons”. The experiment, which involved sending four Ellery Kurtz oil paintings into outer space on board the Space Shuttle Columbia, was designed to see how fine art materials withstood spaceflight. The experiment found that short-term spaceflight is not inherently damaging to fine art materials or art works. Like many other artworks sent into space, Vertical Horizons took advantage of NASA’s Get Away Special program, which allows any interested individual or group to send small experiments into space for a fee.
Image Courtesy of Ars Astronautica
Other 1980’s efforts include Ezra Orion creating a light sculpture by pointing a laser at the milky way and Lowry Burgess sending a self-contained, non-scientific payload into space which held every element known to man and water samples from all the world’s rivers.
Image Courtesy of Arts Block
The 1990’s marked a significant increase in art-based space exploration, starting in 1991 with Richard Kriesche interactive video performance being transmitted aboard the Russian Mir space station. The Mir space station (which was in orbit from 1986 to 2001) would become the sight of numerous other artistic endeavours during the 1990s. For instance, in 1993, Arthur Woods’ sculpture Cosmic Dancer, was sent aboard the Mir to investigate the properties of sculpture in weightlessness and evaluate how the presence of art affected the quality of life aboard the space station.
Image Courtesy of Gennadi Manakov and Alexander Polischuk
Two years later, in 1995, The OURS Foundation, which was established by Arthur Woods in 1990 to develop art projects for space, realized the first art exhibition in Earth’s orbit. The exhibition, entitled Ars ad Astra, included 20 A4 sized works from numerous artists from around the globe.
Image Courtesy of Ars Ad Astra
1999 brought about a more direct collaboration between arts groups and space agencies, when the London based arts group The Arts Catalyst, collaborated with the European Space Agency and the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Centre to execute numerous zero gravity performance art pieces. These performance art pieces took place between 1999 and 2004 and include performances such as the choreographer Kitsou Dubois’ Zero Gravity, where she investigated the ability of her dancers to control defined movements in zero gravity. Neil Parmar highlights the significance of this collaboration in his article.
Image Courtesy of The Arts Catalyst
“Getting art into space isn’t a new idea. And, technically it's already been done before. But there’s a new twist to an old obsession: how do we get scientists to link space and art together, instead of thinking of art as a mere afterthought” says Parmar.
As our chronicle takes us into 2005, the link between artistic expression and space exploration has become commonplace and the accomplishments in this field have now become too numerous to list in totality. Recent endeavours include French Street Artist Invader’s Art4Space initiative, which coordinated the departure of two of the artists works into space in 2012 and 2015. In 2016, NASA sent an open invitation for artworks to be sent into outer space via the OSIRIS-Rex spacecraft, which launched in September that year. In February of 2017, the first sculpture created in outer space was 3-D printed on the International Space Station.This last march, the Calgary based RumbleSat Art in Space Mission ventured to send 150 canadian artworks into space aboard three canadian space agency payloads.
Image Courtesy of @invaderwashere
What was once a trivial relationship has now flourished into a mutually beneficial marriage between two historically separate disciplines. While at one point the idea of linking artistic expression and space travel may have left us asking how or why, it is clear that only one question remains, what’s next?
Fifty3 magazine was published in 8 volumes between 1999–2007. It aimed to expand the critical written discourse about visual culture in the Edmonton region. Our summer intern Joshua Storie has gone through the archives and chosen a selection of articles to profile, and update, in our newsletter throughout the year.
Originally published in a September 2002 issue of Fifty3, Jon Dunbar’s review of Tag Kim’s mural "Trade and Commerce: The History of Edmonton" brought attention to a confusing and at times misdirected interpretation of Edmonton’s history. Fifteen years later, the Telus sponsored mural still sits out of sight and out of mind at the north end of the University of Alberta’s HUB Mall. According to Jon, the mural has not aged well, we caught up with him to get some updated thoughts on the mural.
L53: Have your opinions on the mural changed in the last 15 years?
JD: Looking at it now, it hasn’t aged well. The dynamic avalanche of money chasing that businessman is now decades out of date. To the right, the computers and cellphones seen are old and clunky. On the very right, there’s a payphone. Oh, and last but not least, behind the airplane, we can see the Twin Towers still standing. Yeah, New York’s skyline looks a little different now. The fact that this mural still exists unchanged seems only to indicate nobody cares. So many of the ideas expressed are outdated: globalization has become a familiar part of our lives, and 9/11 certainly changed the world to the point where we can refer to pre- and post-9/11 eras.
So I think it’s gone from an accident that should be corrected to an eyesore and an embarrassment worthy of removal. Surely there’s other art that could take its space. Even ads for businesses in HUB would be preferable.
L53: If a mural is like a billboard for an idea, what message do you think the mural sends to students/HUB Mall patrons?
JD: "White people, you owe this city nothing, so just earn money and blow this popsicle stand." It is globalist, modernist, and corporatist.
JD: I’m not sure it is important to take it down, so much as it would be fun to expose this ridiculous mural and stimulate community discussion about it and what should be done with it.
Because of the 9/11 New York stuff the mural shows its age very poorly. Anyone noticing it would probably laugh derisively at it. Secondly, for Telus’ sake, there’s a mural up that shows them as a company of old, outdated technology. Third, the people of Edmonton should seriously question the integrity of the whole piece as an expression of the city’s history: ‘We don’t have a cruise ship and bullet train!’
I could go on about the materialism and lack of humanity of the right half, but that’s my subjective opinion.
L53: Who should be responsible for the replacement of the mural?
JD: Obviously Telus isn’t paying for the space, unless they signed a 20-year lease on the artwork appearing there or something. I’m not sure if Tag Kim is an Edmonton-based artist or what his relationship to the city is. It really should be the university that decides, and seriously, if they wanted to replace it with ads for A&W and Ho Ho Chinese Food, I would call that an improvement. But obviously it would be better if some kind of student initiative could be placed there. The U of A has a fine arts department, doesn’t it? Hell, the space could be renewed every month.”
L53: Do you think to avoid problems of aging public art should move away from historical objective representation (such as the mural in question, the Grandin mural etc) to subjective representation (ie, graffiti murals, non-monumental sculpture, abstraction, non-historical etc)?
JD: I don’t fully want to give up on the concept of historical murals. It just has to be done better. This mural claims to represent Edmonton, so why not find out what Edmontonians love about the city and include that? Rather than New York, how about the High Level Bridge? Rather than people in an office with clunky old computers, a family enjoying one of Edmonton’s many festivals? Or how about something to do with the actual university? Even the Telus Centre. It seems like it would have been easy enough to make a mural of the city that would be universally loved.
L53: Is public art valuable for the public? Or does it only provide benefit for the artist/corporation who attach their names to the work?
JD: If a corporation attaches its name to the work, is it really public art? The mural exists because it’s a corporate donation to the university; it just happens to be displayed somewhere we can see it. It’s a show of generosity rather than an act of generosity.
To me, the most important thing about public art is that it is accessible to the public. In that case, the HUB mural is not public art because it’s in an awkward place, and people don’t notice it – which is probably also how it’s lasted for so long. It’s not public art if you can’t touch it, pose with it, even in some cases climb on it.
From the Archives will be a recurring piece in the newsletter and on this site.
The 17th edition of Visualeyez starts September 26th. With the annual festival of performance art about to begin, we thought we'd take a look back at the very first edition.
This review of Visualeyez appeared in issue five, volume 3 of the print publication fifty3. Todd Janes recapped the mandate and performances of Visualeyez, which was held February 17 - 21, 2000.
Janes writes that Visualeyez was created out of Latitude 53′s mandate to develop experimental art forms and stimulate dialogue about art in communities, The hope was that the event would
"grow to serve international showcase and educational forum for performance artists from around the region and around the world, annually presenting hundreds of performances, workshops, lectures, educational seminars and special events featuring the work of acclaimed and emerging performance artists."
Some of the highlights of the event included performance artist Christine Carson (Toronto) working with over 50 volunteer singers to create an early morning interventionist piece in the Grandin LRT station called NUMB HUM. The operatic inspired musical work was performed every morning for five consecutive days for early morning commuters.
“This work was an interesting bridge to audiences (whether they knew they were audiences or not) and the festival. Carson presented a piece that effectively blurred the roles of performer and audience. Jose Teodoro and Elyne Quan (Edmonton) brought together a group of seven artists to create Agenda, a funny and eerie work that was one of the strongest of the festical. Agenda was a solid presentation captivated the viewers from the beginning and left them wanting more. Singkronoscities (Edmonton) brough t the very ambitious The Story of the Eye to Visualeyez and reminded us of the long history of performance art. Although the performance was rough, I commend the collective for tackling such a difficult piece and making it work. For audience members who had the stamina to remain for the whole time they were rewarded with a truly experimental work that integrated a vast amount of imagery, sound and movement.”
Other performers included Bobbie Todd, Kathleen Arnold, FM Railways, Trace Willin, TWO, Alex Dallas, Jan Streader, Anne Marie Sewell and Trish Sewell.
Janes also writes about the plans for the next Visualeyez which reflect a very relevant issue for the time.
“Planning for Visualeyez 2001 began with a curatorial theme focused on the notion of surveillance and voyeurism. This decade will be the last time period where it will feel strange to be watched, monitored and tracked, whether it is your debit card, points card or security cameras in public places and private places masking as public places, individuals are followed, observed and traced for issues of security and safety and profit margins.”
For this week’s edition of “From The Fifty3 Archive” we take a dive all the way back to 2002 with Shara Rosko’s article Neighbourhood Watch. In her article, Rosko discusses the role of street artists as interventionists in public space, and their ability to infiltrate the urban realm to communicate messages to the general public.
Rosko’s article prompted a conversation with Dr. Andriy Nahachewsky, a professor in the department of Modern Language and Cultural Studies at the University of Alberta and de facto street art expert on campus. Nahachewsky helps us to understand how street art has evolved and its important conflictual relationship with the law and accepted public space.
L53: Considering the diverse motivations and products of street art is there any common denominator that link all forms of street art?
Andriy: Very often there is a big separation between stuff that is placed in a private property where there is control over who sees it and who owns it, while street art is out there in a neutral public space and is vulnerable because of that. Some people make a big distinction between authorized and unauthorized street art and that adds another layer to consider. I think just the word street; that it is in a public space, that it is actively put out there where other people go and it gets put into their environment. As opposed to other artists, who may be fabulous artists, but only get seen by a group of 200 people because they are behind closed doors in an art gallery. However, I would say in some sense, that the differences between the many kinds of street art are more powerful than the unifying factors.
L53: I feel like people place street art in a box of only including mediums like spray paint, paint markers, stickers etc. Could you elaborate on the idea that street art goes beyond these media?
Andriy: The technology of spray paint changed street art an awful lot because you can put mostly permanent paint on a surface, even a rough surface very fast. So for illegal art, say in the 1960s and 1970s that was a huge technological breakthrough that changed the whole business of art. A lot of street art continues to be done by spray paint because of that heritage and also because you can spray on uneven surfaces and still produce an image that looks clear from a long ways away. But there are so many different media. You could write “joe loves mary” in ketchup on a picnic table and that can be considered a kind of street art as well.
L53: How does the illegality of street art affect it formally?
Andriy: Speed is one issue and I believe some early art historians felt that the speed desperation, adrenaline rush and fear that people had when they were doing the illegal stuff on the street made it beautiful. You could feel it in the lines and the energy of the piece, so in some ways the illegalness, anonymity, danger, the rush of it is positive aesthetically as well as for the individual that does it, they like the buzz as much as they like the finished product.
L53: Are taggers motivated more to be recognized by their peer group, or to subvert/undermine society through tagging on public property?
Andriy: I don’t think that there is one answer to this question. I think some individuals are speaking to themselves and those people you might recognize because they write their name in wildstyle, so only they and their inside peers recognize who that is and get it, whereas other people are really about issues of privacy, public space vs. corporate space. It's a whole continuum with a range of people in between, there is no one answer.
L53: Do you think that street art can be considered a kind of performance art?
Andriy: I think the process and the act of doing it is thought of very carefully. I'm thinking of Banksy’s early pieces where he would detourn a painting, smuggle it into an art gallery, quietly put it on the wall and walk away, and see how long it took the art gallery to realize that they were displaying something that they hadn’t intended to display. I would say that's a great example of performance art. On another level, there is performance between street artists. If three or four of you are going out with spray cans in the night it really is about performing for each other as much as it is about the product.
L53: Does geography inform formal style in any way? Can you identify a particular street art style as originating from one location versus another location? Or is the formal style more universal?
Andriy: I think that it can be both. The tagging culture that became infamous in New York in 1970ish has particular aesthetic styles. It grew them in connection with the hip-hop world, so the hip-hop tagging world in Tokyo has a lot of overlap with the hip-hop tagging culture in New York or Johannesburg I’m sure. Last year I spent a number of weeks in Clermont-Ferrand in France. I was surprised to see how much of it was in English, and that is a way of connecting them with that New York heritage and that hip-hop style (through the common use of language). But in Brussels where I was spending some time recently, most of it is in French or Dutch or other languages commonly used there. The goals of that graffiti subculture let’s say are different than what's happening in Clermont-Ferrand. In Clermont-Ferrand, the culture seems to be more interested in tagging where in Brussels it appears to be a lot more ideological and the ideological stuff you want in your local language because you want to communicate the message of the words. So that's a different species of street art than tagging is and there's tons of it and it's very active and it’s intense, for me that's very attractive.
L53: Will street art and the establishment (police, the government etc) ever peacefully co-exist, or will they always be in conflict.
Andriy: I am on the fence about this. While I think it is true that they can peacefully co-exist, for instance, Sydney Australia has declared itself a graffiti place and they celebrate that and they make millions of dollars off of tourists as a result because it has become a colorful and active place for street art. But in a capitalist world there will always be this sense of private property where large corporate interests can have a monopoly on the messages communicated to the public and as a result that will always work against street art. Sidewalks, streets and walls bombard us with messages all the time. Who is to say that the general public can’t add to those messages or create those messages? Why do only the corporate and government people get to add to these messages that infiltrate our brain all the time. So I would say that most of the time, there will always be a sort of confrontational aspect between street artists and the establishment and for many people, that's what defines street art, if it's not illegal then why bother.
