NP Rank:
What is wrong with this picture?
What is wrong with this picture?
“NASA started commissioning works of art inspired by the space program in 1962, shortly after its inception in 1958. The agency has about 3,000 pieces.”
There is nothing wrong with government supporting the arts through the right channel. There is nothing wrong with government departments procuring art through the right channels.
At a time when government should be seeking a smaller footprint and focusing on its primary mission, there is something wrong with NASA commissioning artwork.
Perhaps NASA should be auctioning its assets to replenish its budget.
Public art is a good thing when managed by the National Endowment of the Arts.
“NASA’s art collection on display at Smithsonian
By Rachel Saslow, Published: June 15
American artists Andy Warhol, Norman Rockwell and Annie Leibovitz have all contributed to the vast art collection of . . . the National Aeronautics and Space Administration?
Visitors to the National Air and Space Museum might be surprised to learn the origin of the more than 70 photos, paintings and sculptures on display in the new exhibition “NASA/Art: 50 Years of Exploration.”
NASA started commissioning works of art inspired by the space program in 1962, shortly after its inception in 1958. The agency has about 3,000 pieces.
But budget tightening has left NASA’s art program in “a lull,” program curator Bert Ulrich said.
“We had a zero budget last year, and this year’s not looking good either,” he said, adding that the program endures nonetheless.
Artists get a $2,500 commission from NASA for their work — peanuts compared with what most would normally earn.
“That’s the beauty of the program,” Ulrich said. “The artists that work with us are so inspired by NASA that they are very generous.”
In return, NASA gives them special access to meet astronauts and learn about the agency.
When Rockwell produced his 1965 oil painting of astronauts John Young and Gus Grissom, he borrowed a Gemini spacesuit to ensure the work’s accuracy. (His commission was $800.) Tina York studied fluid dynamics at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California to create her 1995 mixed-media piece. Both are on display in the Air and Space Museum exhibit, which runs through Oct. 9.
James Webb, NASA’s second administrator, started the art program and tapped NASA staffer James Dean as its founding director.
Asif Siddiqi, an associate professor at Fordham University who specializes in the history of science and technology, said NASA’s art program gave space exploration a kind of visual aesthetic and the public a sense of the possibilities of the space program.
“A generation of people who grew up, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, still associate that particular aesthetic with the space program,” he said.
Many federal agencies have art collections. The Senate maintains portraits of past members, in addition to mirrors, chairs, paintings, and historical prints and engravings. The Federal Reserve Board established its art program in the mid-1970s in response to President Richard Nixon’s call for the government to support the arts. The Fed has more than 400 works of donated art, including an 1890s oil painting by Victor Dubreuil of barrels overflowing with money.
The Postal Service has about 1,200 murals and 300 sculptures that were created for post offices from 1934 to 1943 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, according to Dallan Wordekemper, the Postal Service’s federal preservation officer.
“Postal employees are proud of the art collection, and the public finds it beautiful, inspiring and appreciates its historic significance,” he said.
Ulrich has a photographer in mind to shoot NASA’s final shuttle mission on July 8, but the work probably will be donated, rather than commissioned.
“Artwork’s not going to be a priority for the agency right now, and that’s understandable,” Ulrich said. “The great thing is we have a collection now that we can look back at.””
Crowd Power
-
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (5)
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 10:11 on June 16th, 2011
"Artists get a $2,500 commission from NASA for their work"
NASA'a $2,500 dollar layout is hardly a project that needs to be added to the list of government expenditure to consider for cut backs. Obama's weekly hair cut and manicure costs that much. Let us concentrate on where services and programs are duplicated and what are the costs of providing such services and/or programs versus what the service is to provide. If it costs more to provide the service than what it delivers than let us get rid of that service or find an alternative way to provide it.
I know I keep coming back eventually to the same point but, government has to learn to run as does any other business. Government needs to be streamlined and efficient. Not the bloated, wasteful and inefficient system currently in operation. And the large part of our national debt has accrued through this bloated, wasteful and inefficient system.
Case in point from and earlier discussion. Federal government provided nutrition/food programs[plural]. We have five or six programs offering basically the same thing. These programs could be amalgamated into a single account, streamlined and made efficient in their delivery. Same for health care. Do we really need separate operational accounts for delivering health care? Medicaid/Medicare/CHIP/Tricare/VA.. No, we don't. Let us have these services amalgamated and placed under a single account and dramatically reduce the overhead of providing these services more cost effectively.
This is only two such examples. Think of how many times and in how many Dept.'s such simple moves would reduce government overhead and put that much more money into the system for services. Not to mention overall debt reduction. The question is. Are we going to find the political will with in this government to accomplish those simple and obvious reductions in overhead? I don't think so. Obama government has a big government agenda and they are not looking at cost effectiveness at all. Exactly the opposite. Obama is expanding the size and scope of the inefficiency.
at 03:50 on June 17th, 2011
You make it sound as if Obama is really get quite a bit accomplished.
at 14:55 on June 16th, 2011
While I think NASA should think to the future to inspire young minds with the exciting possibilities of science instead of reliving the glory days of past....... I have no real issues with the cash outlay by them.
I am a quasi artist, son of a quasi artist, step son of an amazing sculpture artist (rip), I feel Art is hugely important... I also feel one major agency in control of national outlay of artistic projects is a HUGE mistake. National endowment for the arts does good works.... but we need more visions than one agency to define the art of our society, otherwise we run the risk of "Propaganda Art" or "Favoritism Art" becoming the norm....
at 03:52 on June 17th, 2011
I actually liked the propaganda art of WWII...Ben Shahn for instance.
You make a good point about too much centralization of authority. I have a problem with NASA because so many of its "science" projects have been congressional earmarks, funding "science" that goes nowhere.
at 04:20 on June 17th, 2011
You inspired this story today.
http://my.nowpublic.com/culture/public-art