#fifty3

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.

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.

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. 

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.