Painting What Can’t Be Seen
Botanical artists hang out at the local gardens or — if they are highly motivated — travel to tropical islands to depict flora in their native habitat. Wildlife artists journey to the Serengeti or the Rocky Mountains to hone their skills. But what’s a space artist to do? The farthest humans have ventured is to the Moon, but astronomical art calls for artistic voyages to the frigid moons of Jupiter or even the desolate landscapes of planets circling other stars. The challenge presents some horrific travel expenses! Instead, the space artist relies on the powerful tool of comparative planetology: the artist studies the geology of the Earth and other worlds, finding terrain on terra firma that bears similarity to the geology of Mars, Venus, or a host of other targets.
Space art has its roots buried deep in history. The process of painting a scene or object which no one has seen first-hand is a process that reaches far into the past. Explorers throughout the ages have brought artists along to document discoveries and foreign vistas. The paintings of Albert Bierstadt and Thomas Moran helped to convince the U.S. Congress to found the first two national parks at Yellowstone and Yosemite. Frederick Catherwood documented the discoveries of Maya, Aztec, and Incan ruins by John Lloyd Stevens. Frederic Church mounted expeditions to Antarctica, South America, and other environs to create some of the most beautiful natural science paintings in history.
Today we have new kinds of explorers, venturing into even more remote frontiers. Some wear space suits, while others dress in solar cells. They all return tales from their travels, and the artist must translate these tales into something on a human — and aesthetic — scale.
A great pleasure to read this article! I have one of Mr. Carroll’s smaller paintings, Jupiter seen from one of its moons, in my study. And Marilyn Flynn’s “Sand in your suit” hangs in my living room, a delightful romp down a Martian sand dune. If you, dear reader, have not yet experienced the wonder and beauty of the IAAA’s web site and the many artists who are members, drop what you are doing and go there AT ONCE. Michael only begins to tell of all the meticulous research and dedication to fact that all the IAAA’s artist practice. These artists are more than half scientist too. Their paintings and other renderings should be in every school in the country, to help encourage the study of science and engineering, and to encourage our exploration and development of space. And, while the IAAA artist is dedicated to as accurate a depiction as possible, I think most of them are also very hopeful and positive. “Look where we are going next,” they say.
Thanks, Pajamas Media, for publishing this.
This is awesome. I’m sure some Obamabot will come in crying about how a drug addict could have been given another free hit with this money instead of ‘wasting’ it on the space program. Can’t wait until we get another president that puts “SCIENCE” where it should be, with a man in a seat riding a rocket.
Robots run programs, people explore!
Sic semper tyrannis
Fabulous stuff. The space art of the 60s is one of the things that got me interested in a career in science. Some of the high resolution photos from the Apollo program are as spectacular as the concept art, in their own way.
Great article, Mike. It’s nice to see the history of exploratory art laid out in such clear detail.
A terrific article with stunning illustrations. We should always be exploring and thinking about the universe. I fear for our space program with the clownish Obamabots who run our country in 2010.
Very interesting article, which pushes me to make a point and ask a question:
The artist obviously must take credit for his/her creation. If someone takes a picture of Mona Lisa, credit goes to both Da Vinci and the Louvre, but not necessarily or exclusively to the photographer or the manufacturer and/or lender of the camera.
So, when Hubble (or any telescope) takes a picture of the Universe, why is it that credit routinely goes to the person/agency that took that picture?
For example, here:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/
I find that to be in violation of the spirit of copyright laws. God, as the creator, must be acknowledged as the first entity to assign credit, and then the public that footed the bill to build that telescope and created these agencies.
Excellent point. Could you forward the address to which we should send model releases?
Two people can take the same set of data (many images comprise a single picture) and come up with different final images. There is art in image processing. It is a long process that entails many personal decisions about how to represent the data.
Thus the person who processes the data, the artist, should be given credit… not the just the camera.
The most impressive space painting I have ever seen was on the cover of the L-5 newsletter (I think) called “Ultimate Sandbox” by Michael Whelan. It had a little girl in a Miss Piggy spacesuit sitting on the lunar surface making a dust castle. (Can’t link it, but it can be googled)
Oh well, maybe my great-great grandchildren will have the chance….