Art in the Space Age: Between the Artificial and the Artistic

This essay was originally written for the Time, Space and Mobility Conference 2017. Below is the version published in the subsequent post-conference volume, Fluidity in Memory, Place and Time, as edited by Duygu Kalkan Açıkkapı.

Since writing this piece I learned things about David Bowie and Orson Scott Card that made me realize how problematic they are (I lived under a rock for a while), so I would likely have chosen different examples (or approached them in a different way) if I were to write this now. That said, I think the main idea of this essay holds up and I stand by it.

Abstract

In his recent TEDx talk, Professor Stephen Hawking presented an idea of unpersonned space flight which, if successful, could lead humanity to the exploration the planetary system of Alpha Centauri within approximately 20 years. We may still be decades, if not centuries, away from space flight being an everyday occurrence, but as technological advances develop at an increasingly rapid rate we need to start asking: will we need art in space? This paper explores issues related to the place of art in the age of technology and, in time, of space exploration. As technological advances develop at an increasingly fast rate, the question appears: what is the place of art in the era of the artificial? Inspirations are drawn from the visions of life in space present in popular culture, as well as new technologies and representations thereof. Frequently, visions of the future explore potential consequences of misusing our own creations, serving as warnings rather than depicting idyllic utopias. Works of art can further our understanding of these important matters, but they need to remain accessible as technology advances. Opportunities for cultural education also have to be available. Art is just as essential to modern societies as it has always been, and perhaps even more so. However, steps need to be taken to ensure that it is truly egalitarian and thus fully accessible to all.

Keywords: art, technology, popular culture, science fiction, cultural education

In his recent TEDx talk Professor Stephen Hawking presented the unpersonned space flight project Breakthrough Starshot which, if successful, could potentially allow humanity to explore the star system of Alpha Centauri within around 20 years of commencement (Hawking 2016). The project, co-created with Yuri Milner and supported by Mark Zuckerberg, aims to reduce the time it would take to travel to the Alpha Centauri system (estimated at approx. 30,000 years at our current capacity) so significantly that we could be exploring it potentially within a generation or two (Breakthrough Initiatives 2012). Notably, last year astronomers have found that Proxima b, one of the planets orbiting our closest neighbour, Proxima Centauri, is within the star’s habitable zone, which means there is a potential for water, and consequently a life form, to exist there (Amos 2016). Whether or not it does is yet to be determined, however it appears that we finally have the technology at our disposal that will allow us, in the words of Star Trek’s Captain James T. Kirk, “to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilisations.“ If nothing else, this new world could potentially provide a suitable environment for human habitation. Prof. Hawking stresses that if humanity is to survive, it needs to explore space and start colonising other planets (Hawking 2016). We may still be decades, if not centuries, away from space flight being an everyday occurrence and humans being able to live outside of Earth, but as technological advances develop at an increasingly rapid rate, we need to start asking, will we need art in space? Even now, our everyday reality is accompanied by augmented reality and virtual reality. What is the place of art in the era of the artificial? Could technology make art obsolete?

1969 was the year that captured humanity’s imagination. The space race was over – the Americans have landed on the Moon. Artists have also made their mark on the process with their tributes to the brave astronauts, and with their visions of existence in the infinite void. One of the most memorable songs of that time is David Bowie’s Space Oddity. This ode to the lost starman, defiantly abandoning his post and stepping out into the universe, captured hearts and inspired minds. Short four years later, once again the unimaginable happened, when a guest from space has landed on our planet. Ziggy Stardust, figuratively brought to life by Bowie, sang about the world which had only five years of existence left, and called to “let all the children boogie.” Few creations were as influential to music and popular culture as this alter ego of Bowie. His artistic explorations of outer space reflected upon the emptiness and isolation felt by his protagonists on the inside, and the sense of alienness that so many people carry (Interesting essays on this topic by Michael Mooradian Lupro and Ian Chapman were published in the book titled Enchanting David Bowie: Space/Time/Body/Memory, Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Despite all the technology to help us communicate, and in spite of being surrounded by people, we can still feel alone, or like we don’t belong. The comfort comes from feeling a part of something greater. This is why a moving tribute to Major Tom has caused people the world over to once again look to the stars. Up there, Canadian astronaut Col. Chris Hadfield sang Space Oddity with revised lyrics while flying in outer space. In this gesture, art and science collided. Mortality has transcended time by reaching into infinity. As Col. Hadfield himself wrote, he brought “that art full circle. It was meant as a way to allow people to experience, without it being stated, that our culture had reached beyond the planet. We live in space” (Hadfield 2016).

In Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek series, the human society is imagined as unified, with no more divisions, no need for wealth and no inequalities. All technology is state-of-the-art; at a level we can only aspire to with our current knowledge. And yet, with all these advancements, humans are just as imperfect as ever. Captain Kirk is virtually the embodiment of recklessness, anger and overconfidence. He does have, of course, many redeeming qualities. However, what his example shows, is that even with unbelievable technological progress, human nature will not change at the same rate, if at all. We will always be imperfect and liable to fall. More importantly though, even in a society where all of its members are equal, a fear of the Other still exists. As noted by Denise A. Hurd, the series through its handling of mixed origin characters perpetuated a negative stereotype of multi-ethnicity (Hurd 1997: 23). A vision of the future filled with technological advances and everyday contact with foreign species is thus still anthropocentric, and still labels its characters based on their biological nature, which it sees as linked to their origin. The original series of Star Trek was set in the 23rd century – there is still a long way to go if all humans are to become truly equal within the next two hundred years.

The possibility of travelling in space one day inspires many, but also poses many questions. One could however argue that humanity may not face some of those challenges after all. We cannot predict the future, we can only imagine the possibilities, and it won’t be for a few generations before humanity discovers what challenges really lay ahead. Should we worry about it already?

Indeed, we do. Prof. Hawking in his NASA 50th anniversary lecture postulated that space exploration needs to be a part of a long-term plan, possibly going into hundreds of years, if not more (Hawking 2008). It means that we need to take steps towards future discoveries now, and set up the following generations for the best start possible by sharing all our knowledge, including our warnings and fears. After all, we already have the scientific knowledge at our disposal which has the capacity to destroy. A popular TV series Black Mirror by Charlie Brooker depicts the potential destructive capabilities of technology we use every day, such as mobile phones or the internet. It shows how it can be used to bully, control or destroy, even on a large scale. One of the episodes in the third series concerned gaming, and using people’s own thoughts and memories to create various unsettling game scenarios. Accessing people’s brains meant that they experienced layered levels of consciousness and were susceptible to deadly technical errors. Given the increasing popularity of augmented and visual reality technologies, as well as the constant development of brain-controlled hardware, this is not an illegitimate concern. As with many developments, while they can be beneficial, they may also be used to cause harm. Fiction can potentially become reality, and at this rate, it is never too soon to ask what it means for humanity.

It is not just popular media that raise the topic of technology. Many artists already collaborate with scientists to create projects aiming to educate and inform on various issues surrounding our development. One of such projects is The Great Silence, a video installation created in 2014 by Jennifer Allora and Guillermo Calzadilla, with text by Ted Chiang (Allora, Calzadilla & Chiang 2014). The subject of the installation is a radio telescope in Puerto Rico, placed in a location of a critically endangered species of parrot, Amazona vittata. Among its many meanings, the story raises an important point with regards to the human quest for company in the universe. Here we are, looking for intelligent life in other star systems, even galaxies, yet there is so much intelligent life right here, on Earth – yet we do not seem to make the effort to try and communicate with it, even seeing it as inferior to ourselves. Similar points are raised by the work of Chris Impey and Heather Green in the artwork inspired by Impey’s book, The Living Cosmos (Impey & Green 2010). There is certainly a degree of arrogance to our claim of being the most intelligent organism on the planet, particularly given our unprecedented capacity for self-destruction. There is no guarantee that extraterrestrial life will be as biologically or intellectually advanced as humans, yet we still search for neighbours in the universe. Although some of this yearning may stem from our human desire for company, one has to wonder if it will not lead to another conquest; will other life forms not be just another species to dominate? This was one of the key problems of the Ender’s Game novel and the subsequent Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. These literary works discuss how in its lust for dominating space, humanity has virtually erased a whole species, largely due to a failure in communication. By not attempting a dialogue with the foreign species, a dramatic eradication took place. Can we attest that it is not already happening on our home planet?

Disciplinary boundaries are being broken between art and science even further so that we can involve non-humans in the creation of art. The movement of bioart, for instance, utilises living cells or organisms to create an organic, and sometimes living, work of art. It is certainly one way of centring our view on other species, as opposed to anthropocentrism which has guided our cognition for centuries (Impey & Green 2010: 440). Bioart can also raise important ethical questions about scientific advancements we make and their impact on the world around us. For instance, the 2016 project The Condition by Laura Beloff and Jonas Jørgensen used 12 seedlings of cloned Christmas trees, arranged into a grid of independent and self-sufficient organisms (Beloff & Jørgensen 2016). The work raises questions concerning aesthetics, our need for perfection (even from nature) and mass production of living organisms, but also explores themes such as survival mechanisms and the role of genetics in changing environments (Debatty 2016). The latter themes are inspired by research into growing plants in space through the project’s use of a weightless environment simulation.

Although they speak of important matters, works from the bioart realm can also cause some doubt about the agency of the organisms they feature. After all, their participation cannot be considered consensual, even though it is usually active. Further, just as some scientists try to increase their efforts to make their work accessible to others, the artists working within the art/science realm need to keep the same goal in mind. The advanced level of science that these works can often involve may make them difficult to access by the wider public. Therefore, although raising the right questions, their impact may be limited by the exclusion of uninitiated audience.

This matter is of particular importance. Various academic courses exist with a purpose to equip their students with the necessary tools and cultural references to enable them to analyse and interpret the works of art they encounter. However, not everyone will choose this path. And if academic education is required to understand art, what does it mean about its accessibility? This is precisely the concern expressed by the participants of the research project by Anne Goulding (2013: 28). It showed that elderly consumers of art can feel excluded from modern exhibitions and find them difficult to understand, and therefore do not see their purpose. On the other hand, younger people may not have the same language at their disposal as the academics do, and so their discourse about art may require a different approach (Sayers 2014: 362-363). Finally, a research project conducted at the Louvre has indicated that some visitors are comfortable with experiencing art at their own pace, however, others do require some guidance and appreciate helpful resources to help them navigate through an exhibition or provide more information (Larceneux, Caro & Krebs 2016:7-10).

Of course, art is very subjective and everyone will interpret it differently, based on their own experiences and knowledge. Undoubtedly many viewers are able to make subjective sense of what they experience when it comes to works of art. However, can we be confident that this is the case for all? Can we be certain for instance, that the cultural education system is at a level which can provide people with the basic skills necessary (or at least helpful) to be able to understand art? We cannot be condescending towards the viewers, but likewise, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that not everyone willing to experience art will be fully equipped with the knowledge required to do so in every case.

There will no doubt be numerous efforts undertaken to help make art more accessible. However, as demonstrated by the recent Congress of Culture in Warsaw, Poland, in the particular case of the Polish school curriculum, cultural education has marginal meaning (Kongres Kultury 2016: 141-150). It has been argued that more cooperation is needed between educational and cultural establishments to promote cultural education throughout the country, starting with the younger generations, so that they can become active and competent consumers and participants of culture. In light of the research presented above, it is the essential requirement for the future development of societies, not just in Poland, and if art is to survive in the age of technology, it is indispensable.

We can see now that the Space Age poses humanity with many challenges. And yet, so many conflicts here on Earth remain unresolved. Post-truth is today’s watchword. Virtual and augmented realities, development of artificial intelligence, biased visions of life we see on social media to name a few examples – just as they can bring us closer together, they can also skew our perception of reality and push us further apart. As we move forward ever faster, we risk leaving behind the mythologies that used to guide us. We therefore need art now more than ever, to remind us what is real and what is important. We need it to be accessible, so that we can all benefit from its message. Art therefore faces an important challenge of bridging the gap between spirit and reason, so that we don’t lose sight of what really matters. May art guide us so that it is our flaws we leave behind as we step out into the infinity of space.

Works cited

  1. Bowie D., 1969, “Space Oddity” [in:] David Bowie AKA Space Oddity [CD], Philips SBL 7912.

  2. Bowie D., 1972, “Starman” [in:] The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars [CD], RCA Victor SF 8287.

  3. Card O. S., 2010, Ender’s Game, Amazon.com [Kindle edition]: Tor Books.

  4. Card O. S., 1994, Speaker for the Dead, Amazon.com [Kindle edition]: Tor Books.

  5. Hadfield C., 2013, “Space Oddity” [online video] [in:] Space Sessions: Songs From a Tin Can, Warner Music Canada Co., available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo [date of access 28.02.2017].

  6. “Playtest”, Black Mirror, 2016, Netflix [online].

  7. Shatner W., Nimoy L., 2007, Star Trek: The Original Series, Hollywood, Calif., CBS DVD.

References

  1. Allora J., Calzadilla G., Chiang T., 2014, “The Great Silence,” e-flux journal 56th Venice Biennale, available at http://supercommunity.e-flux.com/texts/the-great-silence [date of access 26.02.2017].

  2. Amos J., 2016, “Neighbouring star Proxima Centauri has Earth-sized planet” [in:] Science & Environment, BBC News, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scienceenvironment-37167390 [date of access 26.02.2017].

  3. Beloff J., Jørgensen J., 2016, “The Condition. Towards Hybrid Agency”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Electronic Art ISEA2016 Hong Kong, available at https://isea2016.scm.cityu.edu.hk/openconf/modules/request.php?module=oc_program&action=view.php&id=465&type=4&a= [date of access 26.02.2017].

  4. Breakthrough Initiatives, 2012, “Internet Investor and Science Philanthropist Yuri Milner & Physicist Stephen Hawking Announce Breakthrough Starshot Project to Develop 100 Million Mile per Hour Mission to the Stars within a Generation”, available at https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/News/4 [date of access 26.02.2017].

  5. Chapman I., 2015, “Ziggy’s Urban Alienation: Assembling the Heroic Outsider,” Enchanting David Bowie: Space/Time/Body/Memory, Cinque T., Moore C., Redmond S. (eds.), London: Bloomsbury Academic.

  6. Debatty R., 2016, “The Christmas tree, your typical postnatural organism,” We Make Money Not Art, available at http://we-make-money-not-art.com/the-christmas-treeyour-typical-postnatural-organism [date of access 26.02.2017].

  7. Dumitriu A., 2016, “Art as a meta-discipline: Ethically exploring the frontiers of science and biotechnology,” Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research 14(1 & 2): 105-112.

  8. Galloway S., 2009, “Theory-based evaluation and the social impact of the arts,” Cultural Trends 18(2): 125-148.

  9. Goulding A., 2013, “Older People Learning through Contemporary Visual Art – Engagement and Barriers,” International Journal of Art & Design Education 32(1): 18-32.

  10. Hadfield C., 2016, Space Oddity, available at http://chrishadfield.ca/space-oddity [date of access 26.02.2017].

  11. Hawking S., 2008, “Why We Should Go Into Space, NASA 50th Anniversary Lecture Series” (in 4 parts), part 1 available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PCAGm5a1r8 [date of access 26.02.2017].

  12. Hawking S., 2016, “Why exploring space matters,” TEDxLondon, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91cd3DOHL4 [date of access 26.02.2017].

  13. Hurd D. A., 1997, “The Monster Inside: 19th Century Racial Constructs in the 24th Century Mythos of Star Trek”, Journal of Popular Culture 31(1): 23-35.

  14. Impey C., Green H., 2010, “The Living Cosmos: A Fabric That Binds Art and Science,” Leonardo 43(5): 435-441.

  15. Kongres Kultury 2016. Podsumowanie, diagnoza, rekomendacje, 2016, “Edukacja,” Warszawa: Teatr Powszechny im. Zygmunta Hübnera, available at http://www.kongreskultury2016.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/publikacj/index.html [date of access 27.02.2017].

  16. Larceneux F., Caro F., Krebs A., 2016, “The Reaction of Visitors to Contemporary Art in a Classical Art Institution: A Louvre Museum Case Study,” International Journal of Arts Management 18(2): 4-13.

  17. Lupro M. M., 2015, “Keeping Space Fantastic: The Transformative Journey of Major Tom,” Enchanting David Bowie: Space/Time/Body/Memory, Cinque T., Moore C., Redmond S. (eds.), London: Bloomsbury Academic.

  18. Novak-Leonard J. L., O’Malley M. K., Truong E., 2015, “Minding the gap: Elucidating the disconnect between arts participation metrics and arts engagement within immigrant communities,” Cultural Trends 24(2): 112-121.

  19. Sayers E., 2014, “‘Equality of Intelligences’: Exploring the Barriers to Engagement in Modern and Contemporary Art through a Peer-to-Peer Workshop at Tate Modern,” International Journal of Art & Design Education 33(3): 355-364.