That's an interesting combination, and one that many people don't expect. Not that anyone should be surprised an artist may be inspired by the space program, but that NASA would fund an art program. Generally the public is not cognizant of the NASA art program. On finding out, there is a mixture of surprise and delight for the most part, at least in my experience.
Over the weekend, I saw the currently-traveling exhibit "NASA Art: 50 Years of Exploration". I had purchased the book last year, and was astounded. Even though I was familiar with some of the more well publicized paintings, there were many that I'd never seen. It was a great journey of discovery. However, seeing the canvases before one is quite a different experience. The camera cannot catch so many things. And one of the biggest surprises is the sheer size of some of the works. That alone can overwhelm, particularly with a close look at attention to detail, among other concepts. It was an event I doubt will fade much in my memory. I intend to reinforce it with a return visit before the exhibit moves on.
Having briefly given my impression of the magnificent display, I'd like to address another side of this. Particularly in a time of economic distress, the reaction of some people to the NASA art program is quite negative. It's a great waste of money, according to them. I won't bother to cover the recession era funding of such a program, but simply address the existence of it in general.
The art of a society is not, as some think, a luxury. It's not necessary for absolute existence, true. However, as all artists of all media know, art is necessary for their own existence. It's also a measure of a culture, not just aesthetically, but also emotionally, intellectually...and all other "ally"s that you can list. It also demonstrates the health of a culture, perhaps not physically, but psychologically and mentally. Art is for its own sake, but there are absolutes as well, as much as some artisans may feel looking at it that way makes art bourgeois. However, it is true, and we all have different ways of perceiving anything. Therefore, art has value even to those who cannot appreciate the aesthetics.
This is as much a way of recording the history of space travel as video and film and commentary. Artists bring their unique perspective, and challenge ours. They will compel us to step outside our boundaries to view any object or event in a way that probably has never occured to us. Even a technological thinker like James Webb, the NASA administrator who intiated the NASA art program, recognized the value of art, and what it would mean not just to us but to future generations as they studied and thought about the achievements of NASA.
A waste of money? Hardly. The news commentator who most recently pronounced it as such merely shows her lack of imagination, lack of historical thought and lack of aesthetic sense with that declaration. Before any person lays such a claim out for public consumption, s/he should spend a couple of hours soaking in the traveling exhibit. Not a fast walk through. At least two hours, with a knowledgeable docent. Afterwards, if that person feels the same, s/he is to be pitied.
Over the weekend, I saw the currently-traveling exhibit "NASA Art: 50 Years of Exploration". I had purchased the book last year, and was astounded. Even though I was familiar with some of the more well publicized paintings, there were many that I'd never seen. It was a great journey of discovery. However, seeing the canvases before one is quite a different experience. The camera cannot catch so many things. And one of the biggest surprises is the sheer size of some of the works. That alone can overwhelm, particularly with a close look at attention to detail, among other concepts. It was an event I doubt will fade much in my memory. I intend to reinforce it with a return visit before the exhibit moves on.
Having briefly given my impression of the magnificent display, I'd like to address another side of this. Particularly in a time of economic distress, the reaction of some people to the NASA art program is quite negative. It's a great waste of money, according to them. I won't bother to cover the recession era funding of such a program, but simply address the existence of it in general.
The art of a society is not, as some think, a luxury. It's not necessary for absolute existence, true. However, as all artists of all media know, art is necessary for their own existence. It's also a measure of a culture, not just aesthetically, but also emotionally, intellectually...and all other "ally"s that you can list. It also demonstrates the health of a culture, perhaps not physically, but psychologically and mentally. Art is for its own sake, but there are absolutes as well, as much as some artisans may feel looking at it that way makes art bourgeois. However, it is true, and we all have different ways of perceiving anything. Therefore, art has value even to those who cannot appreciate the aesthetics.
This is as much a way of recording the history of space travel as video and film and commentary. Artists bring their unique perspective, and challenge ours. They will compel us to step outside our boundaries to view any object or event in a way that probably has never occured to us. Even a technological thinker like James Webb, the NASA administrator who intiated the NASA art program, recognized the value of art, and what it would mean not just to us but to future generations as they studied and thought about the achievements of NASA.
A waste of money? Hardly. The news commentator who most recently pronounced it as such merely shows her lack of imagination, lack of historical thought and lack of aesthetic sense with that declaration. Before any person lays such a claim out for public consumption, s/he should spend a couple of hours soaking in the traveling exhibit. Not a fast walk through. At least two hours, with a knowledgeable docent. Afterwards, if that person feels the same, s/he is to be pitied.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment