Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
GCEdo

Category Proposal - Space Art

35 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I'd like to propose new category based on my personal interest in the topic. Comments and suggestions appreciated.

 

Description:

 

The goal of this category is to waymark works of Space Art that are on permanent public display around the world.

 

Expanded Description:

 

Space Art is the genre of modern artistic expression emerging from knowledge and ideas associated with outer space, both as a source of inspiration and as a means for visualizing and promoting space travel. Like other genres of artistic creation, Space Art has many facets and encompasses realism, impressionism, hardware, sculpture, abstract imagery, even zoological art. In general, works of Space Art strive to visualize the wonders of the Universe.

 

Though artists have been making art with astronomical elements for a long time, the genre of Space Art itself is still in its infancy, having begun only when humanity gained the ability to look off our world and artistically depicted what we see out there. Whatever the stylistic path, the artist is generally attempting to communicate ideas somehow related to space, often including an appreciation of the infinite variety, wonder, and vastness of the Universe which surrounds us.

 

There are several sub-genres of Space Art, each with their own unique characteristics:

 

- Descriptive Realism (“Rocks and Balls”) - it is an aspect of Space Art whose primary emphasis is to show a viewer a scientifically accurate visual depiction of alien places in the Cosmos.

 

- Cosmic Impressionism (“Swirly Art”) - like works done in the impressionist era, Space Art works in the Cosmic Impressionism style use color and form to give a viewer the artist’s impression of the image subject matter without trying to be technically accurate, highly detailed, or adhering to known scientific principles; despite being more loose, the subject matter is still clearly inspired by space.

 

- Hardware Art (“Nuts and Bolts”) - it is usually similar to Descriptive Realism but focuses on the detailed depiction of the hardware of spaceships, probes, and equipment being used in a space setting.

 

- Cosmic Zoology - Though the question of other life in the universe has yet to be answered, artists can speculate about it and imagine the possibilities; Cosmic Zoology is the depiction of extraterrestrial life in extraterrestrial settings.

 

- Astronomical Photography - it is a form of extra-terrestrial photography, usually via space probes, where a photo is deliberately framed to place esthetic value over scientific value.

 

- Space Sculpture - Works of Space Sculpture are more difficult to recognize as such as they are usually more symbolic or abstract in nature, like a rocket shape, stained glass windows representing stellar objects, or a sculptured work designed specifically for zero gravity display. However, the prime inspiration for three dimensional works of Space Art is the same as other sub-genres, space itself.

 

The premier organization and only guild in the world dedicated to the creation of Space Art is the International Association of Astronomical Artists (IAAA).

 

Sources: iaaa.org; wikipedia.ord

 

Instructions for Posting a Space Art Waymark:

 

We are interested in works of Space Art that are on permanent public display.

 

Please post at least two original photographs of Space Art.

 

In the Long Description section provide at least one paragraph of text about the Space Art that you are Waymarking.

 

Name your Space Art waymark as:

Space Art Name - City, State, Country

 

Bilingual and multilingual Space Art waymarks are accepted and encouraged, but one of the languages must be English.

Edited by GCEdo
0

Share this post


Link to post

I had a gander at their actual website & the sole Southern Hemisphere representative artist is an Australian however his website link is broken & he has no IAAA portfolio. Paintings etc. are found in galleries as far as I can gather. On the side of a building would be better. Taking photos in a gallery could be problematic, posting as a Waymark a breach of copyright perhaps. You haven't given much background info, other than your interest, so I'm just reporting what I see.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for comments. I will add in description that category is looking for works of Space Art that are on permanent public display.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Think this has possibilities. I travel around the world abit and most counties will have something that fits into the catorgory and it's interesting, or at least I'm interested in it. Good luck with your proposal.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you!

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think this is a valid idea. You could exclude items that qualify for the Space Invaders category, although they are not really Space Art as I understand it.

 

And there might be some questions if this proposal is redundant with the various other art categories.

0

Share this post


Link to post

And there might be some questions if this proposal is redundant with the various other art categories.

 

I'm quite sure it is redundant with other art categories. Maybe seeing examples would help me to better understand, but at this point I would not support the proposal.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like an interesting category. And I think I already have a waymark that might fit in. :-)

0

Share this post


Link to post

And there might be some questions if this proposal is redundant with the various other art categories.

 

I'm quite sure it is redundant with other art categories. Maybe seeing examples would help me to better understand, but at this point I would not support the proposal.

 

I agree, examples would be helpful.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like an interesting category. And I think I already have a waymark that might fit in. :-)

 

One of my tattoos would fit if this be the case. :laughing:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Thank you for comments.

 

I don't think it is redundant in a way that Space Art category = some other existing category. Some works of Space Art maybe could be waymarked under some existing category, but certainly there will be works that can't be waymarked under any existing category. But isn't the similar situation present in numerous other categories as well?

Edited by GCEdo
0

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for comments.

 

I don't think it is redundant in a way that Space Art category = some other existing category. Some works of Space Art maybe could be waymarked under some existing category, but certainly there will be works that can't be waymarked under any existing category. But isn't the similar situation present in numerous other categories as well?

 

Can you provide a photo example of one that can not be Waymarked in an existing category?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for comments.

 

I don't think it is redundant in a way that Space Art category = some other existing category. Some works of Space Art maybe could be waymarked under some existing category, but certainly there will be works that can't be waymarked under any existing category. But isn't the similar situation present in numerous other categories as well?

Yes, this is often the case, very often. But there are different possible interpretations of the redundant criterion. In my understanding a new category must not be a complete subset of another (One) existing category. But others see the criterion not met when all or almost all potential locations can already be waymarked in many different categories. Both views are valid opinions. Just be prepared for some Nay votes because of this.

0

Share this post


Link to post

No, I don't have photo examples.

 

Yes, I have same interpretation of redundant criterion as you - "new category must not be a complete subset of another (One) existing category". Space Art category satisfies such interpretation of redundant criterion.

0

Share this post


Link to post

One of my tattoos would fit if this be the case. :laughing:

 

:laughing:

 

It must be on permanent public display, so it will not fit to this category :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

"Space Sculpture" Like this? Starship Enterprise

 

How about this Probe Craft already WM'd in 4 categories?

 

I think this has a SERIOUS redundancy problem. There are so many space and art and museum categories out there already that would encompass the entirety of this proposed category.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

 

WELP! Look what just hit Peer Review!

 

My comments:

 

This category has several issues.

 

IT's TOO GENERAL to make a good category, because it's not defined clearly enough and contains no logging instructions. This category needs a lot of work before its ready for Peer Review.

 

IT'S 100% REDUNDANT: Everything that could be waymarked in this category can ALREADY be waymarked in other existing Art and Science categories, such as: (1) 3D Models of our World and Beyond (2) Realistic Object Sculptures (3) Kinetic Sculptures (4) Outdoor Interactive Science Displays (5) Solar System Models (6) Artistic Bus Shelters (7) Artistically Painted Utility Boxes (8) All Things Star Wars (9) Extraterrestrial locations (10) Oddball Museums -- etc etc etc.

 

This category was NOT DISCUSSED NEARLY ENOUGH in the forums. Less than 24 hours worth of discussion is not enough.

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
0

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like an interesting category. And I think I already have a waymark that might fit in. :-)

 

One of my tattoos would fit if this be the case. :laughing:

 

I wanna see it! I'd love to waymark me an ornery possum, but as a married woman, I will decline to hold you by the tail . . . [grin]

0

Share this post


Link to post

No, I don't have photo examples.

 

Yes, I have same interpretation of redundant criterion as you - "new category must not be a complete subset of another (One) existing category". Space Art category satisfies such interpretation of redundant criterion.

 

What if everything in the new category can already be waymarked in existing categories? Why is that not redundant too?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for comments.

 

I don't think it is redundant in a way that Space Art category = some other existing category. Some works of Space Art maybe could be waymarked under some existing category, but certainly there will be works that can't be waymarked under any existing category. But isn't the similar situation present in numerous other categories as well?

 

Can you please provide examples of these? Thank you.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like an interesting category. And I think I already have a waymark that might fit in. :-)

 

One of my tattoos would fit if this be the case. :laughing:

 

I wanna see it! I'd love to waymark me an ornery possum, but as a married woman, I will decline to hold you by the tail . . . [grin]

 

I went back and edited that WM to fit the visits it was getting. Likely a mistake on my part thinking I had to make my photo challenge shocking. :anicute:

0

Share this post


Link to post

How cool and classy of you that you started this nice little anti space art category campaign on forum and ridiculing it. Way to go!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Under Waymark Category Criteria for Redundant it states:

 

"Could this category be included as a variable in an existing category? For instance, let's say this new category is called "Blue Lighthouses". But, wait! There may already be a "Lighthouses category". Would it make more sense to add a variable for different colors in the "Lighthouses" details?"

 

In which existing category space art can be included as variable? Not existing categories but one category. Space art is not subset of any existing category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Under Waymark Category Criteria for Redundant it states:

 

"Could this category be included as a variable in an existing category? For instance, let's say this new category is called "Blue Lighthouses". But, wait! There may already be a "Lighthouses category". Would it make more sense to add a variable for different colors in the "Lighthouses" details?"

 

In which existing category space art can be included as variable? Not existing categories but one category. Space art is not subset of any existing category.

 

But you still don't answer why creating a general category that will encompass all the artistic and space-themed waymarks in the various more specific categories is not redundant.

 

By your argument, I could create a category called CATS and all the Lion statues, all the Lions international Club markers, all the Figurative Public sculptures, all the cats in Animal Memorials, and cat graffitos in Graffiti, and all the Cat museums in Oddball Museums could also be waymarked in my new category, and this WOULD NOT create a redundancy issue.

 

THAT MAKES NO SENSE

 

You have the same issue with a category called CHURCHES, which would accept any and all churches everywhere, or the category BENCHMARKS, SURVEY STONES, PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MARKERS, BORDER/BOUNDARY MARKERS AND SIMILAR that would take everything worldwide that is used to mark a boundary or is part of a geodesic network.

 

You are hung up on your obvious love and passion for finding for Space Art, and are failing to understand the core of Waymarking, which is to draw specific categories that include one kind of specific thing, and excludes other even similar kinds of things: think Roman Catholic Churches, for example. Lutheran Churches can't be waymarked there.

 

*IF you can narrow down your way too overly broad idea, AND

 

*IF you can create a category whose potential waymarks will not all fit 100% into another existing category and

 

*IF you can clearly articulate what is and is not allowed in the category, and

 

*IF your category will COMPLEMENT existing categories instead of being a copy-paste of waymarks in them, and

 

*IF you can provide enough specific examples of what the category seeks (and more importantly DOES NOT SEEK) so waymarkers can know what fits and what doesn't,

 

*AND IF you can provide visit and posting instructions, THEN AND ONLY THEN can we get to the next step which is

 

*Forum discussion to iron out whether the category is:

 

+Interesting?

+Global?

+Redundant?

+Not over-or under-prevalent?

0

Share this post


Link to post

How cool and classy of you that you started this nice little anti space art category campaign on forum and ridiculing it. Way to go!

 

Sorry, but many of us asked questions that you ignored before going to peer review with your idea. It has redundancy issues and you failed to prove otherwise before proceeding. <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post

Benchmark Blasterz' last reply nailed it on the head.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Thank you for comments.

 

I don't think it is redundant in a way that Space Art category = some other existing category. Some works of Space Art maybe could be waymarked under some existing category, but certainly there will be works that can't be waymarked under any existing category. But isn't the similar situation present in numerous other categories as well?

 

Above is one of the more salient points presented on this page to date. Though there may be many examples of "Space Art" which can be placed in other categories (overlap, not redundancy in my view), there may well be an equal or greater number which may not. Let's start with sculpture. A few may be "Realistic Object Sculptures", but a greater number, without being abstract, may well be sculptures of a non-existent entity, such as a space ship, flying saucer, alien landscape, alien being, asteroid, etc., and hence not overlapping with an existing category.

 

The only other type of art which would be encompassed by this category of which I can perceive would be paintings. "Space Art" murals, of course, would also fit into the "Murals" category but I believe that the proposal intends to include paintings that are not murals. As has been pointed out previously, photographing paintings may or may not present copyright issues, depending on the paradigm of the artist (or owner of the work) in question, making some "Space Art" unavailable to Waymark.

 

As an aside: If "Space Art" were an existing category and I were its leader I would not exclude "Space Art" murals simply because they were covered by another category. I would include them because they are "Space Art" and truly belong in the category.

 

In any event, after some thought, it appears that the proposal has merit, previous objections notwithstanding. Pushing it through forum discussion, officer review and peer review in less than 24 hours, however, was not a wise move. Let's just chalk that up to inexperience and move on.

 

Keith

 

I just noticed that the times for posts on the forum are now in Zulu. Strange.

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Thank you for comments.

 

I don't think it is redundant in a way that Space Art category = some other existing category. Some works of Space Art maybe could be waymarked under some existing category, but certainly there will be works that can't be waymarked under any existing category. But isn't the similar situation present in numerous other categories as well?

 

Above is one of the more salient points presented on this page to date. Though there may be many examples of "Space Art" which can be placed in other categories (overlap, not redundancy in my view), there may well be an equal or greater number which may not. Let's start with sculpture. A few may be "Realistic Object Sculptures", but a greater number, without being abstract, may well be sculptures of a non-existent entity, such as a space ship, flying saucer, alien landscape, alien being, asteroid, etc., and hence not overlapping with an existing category.

 

The only other type of art which would be encompassed by this category of which I can perceive would be paintings. "Space Art" murals, of course, would also fit into the "Murals" category but I believe that the proposal intends to include paintings that are not murals. As has been pointed out previously, photographing paintings may or may not present copyright issues, depending on the paradigm of the artist (or owner of the work) in question, making some "Space Art" unavailable to Waymark.

 

As an aside: If "Space Art" were an existing category and I were its leader I would not exclude "Space Art" murals simply because they were covered by another category. I would include them because they are "Space Art" and truly belong in the category.

 

In any event, after some thought, it appears that the proposal has merit, previous objections notwithstanding. Pushing it through forum discussion, officer review and peer review in less than 24 hours, however, was not a wise move. Let's just chalk that up to inexperience and move on.

 

Keith

 

I just noticed that the times for posts on the forum are now in Zulu. Strange.

 

I don't have an issue with cross-posting.

 

I do have an issue where there is no explanation of what Space Art the category owner thinks is distinct enough to merit its own category, when what he has written would take it all.

 

I and others have asked for examples of the non-redundant objects that won't fit anywhere else, and have been ignored, before our questions were rendered moot by the rush to peer review.

 

For all I know, the examples of possible Space Art items that cannot be waymarked in any other category could be under prevalent, or not global. I don't know, I can't tell from the description and no examples were given (though requested).

 

I think sculptures of fantasy planets or asteroids can be waymarked in Realistic Object Sculptures because it's a sculpture of a thing that DOES exist - a planet or asteroid. A sculpture of an alien could be more problematic, but I'd still try it in Figurative Public Sculpture because it is based on a human(oid) figure.

 

I have taken a look at the IAAA website and found the proposed category description is lifted 100% from that website and Wikipedia without proper attribution (quotes, links, etc).

 

The IAAA website itself is a list of "certified" space artists, but has no listings of any places where the Certified Artist's works of art are on permanent display.

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
0

Share this post


Link to post

Please explain, is this category restricted to waymarks of the art works created only by the list of International Association of Astronomical Artists (IAAA)? Or is it intended to be a category covering any work of space/alien art by any artist anywhere in the world? I noticed the description was taken from their website so I assumed that the IAAA artworks were the only ones that we could waymark. Or is the category open to any Space related art by any artist that we might discover on our travels, eg. murals and other outdoor exhibits.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have an issue with cross-posting.

 

I do have an issue where there is no explanation of what Space Art the category owner thinks is distinct enough to merit its own category, when what he has written would take it all.

 

I and others have asked for examples of the non-redundant objects that won't fit anywhere else, and have been ignored, before our questions were rendered moot by the rush to peer review.

 

For all I know, the examples of possible Space Art items that cannot be waymarked in any other category could be under prevalent, or not global. I don't know, I can't tell from the description and no examples were given (though requested).

 

I think sculptures of fantasy planets or asteroids can be waymarked in Realistic Object Sculptures because it's a sculpture of a thing that DOES exist - a planet or asteroid. A sculpture of an alien could be more problematic, but I'd still try it in Figurative Public Sculpture because it is based on a human(oid) figure.

 

I have taken a look at the IAAA website and found the proposed category description is lifted 100% from that website and Wikipedia without proper attribution (quotes, links, etc).

 

The IAAA website itself is a list of "certified" space artists, but has no listings of any places where the Certified Artist's works of art are on permanent display.

 

I didn't elaborate to any extent on the points you just made as I expected that you would.

 

Figurative Public Sculpture requests sculptures of a "human or animal figure". An alien is neither.

 

"Fantasy planets or asteroids" are just that, fantasies, not real, hence not "Realistic Object Sculptures".

 

I was aware that GCEdo had copied the text from the IAAA website without attribution, which is definitely bad form.

 

Also, his not responding to requests for examples of Space Art was, again, bad form. I expect, though, that in the vast majority of cases, when one sees an example they will recognize it for what it is.

 

If GCEdo chooses to let his proposal die on the vine, so be it, but I still feel the category would have covered artefacts not otherwise Waymarkable. But then "Not everything needs to be Waymarked".

 

Keith

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have an issue with cross-posting.

 

I do have an issue where there is no explanation of what Space Art the category owner thinks is distinct enough to merit its own category, when what he has written would take it all.

 

I and others have asked for examples of the non-redundant objects that won't fit anywhere else, and have been ignored, before our questions were rendered moot by the rush to peer review.

 

For all I know, the examples of possible Space Art items that cannot be waymarked in any other category could be under prevalent, or not global. I don't know, I can't tell from the description and no examples were given (though requested).

 

I think sculptures of fantasy planets or asteroids can be waymarked in Realistic Object Sculptures because it's a sculpture of a thing that DOES exist - a planet or asteroid. A sculpture of an alien could be more problematic, but I'd still try it in Figurative Public Sculpture because it is based on a human(oid) figure.

 

I have taken a look at the IAAA website and found the proposed category description is lifted 100% from that website and Wikipedia without proper attribution (quotes, links, etc).

 

The IAAA website itself is a list of "certified" space artists, but has no listings of any places where the Certified Artist's works of art are on permanent display.

 

I didn't elaborate to any extent on the points you just made as I expected that you would.

 

Figurative Public Sculpture requests sculptures of a "human or animal figure". An alien is neither.

 

"Fantasy planets or asteroids" are just that, fantasies, not real, hence not "Realistic Object Sculptures".

 

I was aware that GCEdo had copied the text from the IAAA website without attribution, which is definitely bad form.

 

Also, his not responding to requests for examples of Space Art was, again, bad form. I expect, though, that in the vast majority of cases, when one sees an example they will recognize it for what it is.

 

If GCEdo chooses to let his proposal die on the vine, so be it, but I still feel the category would have covered artefacts not otherwise Waymarkable. But then "Not everything needs to be Waymarked".

 

Keith

 

Before I wrote that last post I looked at http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMW3YR_Cupids_Span_San_Francisco_CA . Cupid is a mythical creature, and his magical bow does not exist in the "real world," yet a sculpture of Cupid's bow and arrow is accepted as a Realistic Object sculpture.

 

So I think the test for whether something will be accepted in the category is not is whether the sculpture is of a thing that actually exists, BUT instead is of a thing that can be recognized for what it is, and is not abstract. So if a sculpture of a planet can be recognized as a planet, it seems to me to be ok for the ROS category, whether it's of a "real" planet like Saturn or a fantasy planet, like Gallifrey. :)

 

But the bigger point is that this is why we needed a clear and specific category description, with examples, and why we needed to have a more thorough discussion in the forums. As it stands now, Waymarkers don't know what the parameters of the category are, and therefore we can't tell what can go here or needs to go there, or what won't be accepted there but should go here -- FWIW

 

:)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

 

Before I wrote that last post I looked at http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMW3YR_Cupids_Span_San_Francisco_CA . Cupid is a mythical creature, and his magical bow does not exist in the "real world," yet a sculpture of Cupid's bow and arrow is accepted as a Realistic Object sculpture.

 

So I think the test for whether something will be accepted in the category is not is whether the sculpture is of a thing that actually exists, BUT instead is of a thing that can be recognized for what it is, and is not abstract. So if a sculpture of a planet can be recognized as a planet, it seems to me to be ok for the ROS category, whether it's of a "real" planet like Saturn or a fantasy planet, like Gallifrey. :)

 

But the bigger point is that this is why we needed a clear and specific category description, with examples, and why we needed to have a more thorough discussion in the forums. As it stands now, Waymarkers don't know what the parameters of the category are, and therefore we can't tell what can go here or needs to go there, or what won't be accepted there but should go here -- FWIW

 

:)

 

Should have looked at the WM first. Somehow I had visualized "Cupid", not his bow and arrow.

 

With regard to the "bigger point", yes, indeed, a "clear and specific category description" is certainly in order at this point.

 

This could all be moot, however, if GCEdo doesn't see fit to continue, which he may well do (or don't, as the case may be).

 

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post

What did I miss here? It looks like a Realistic Object Sculpture to me.

 

Let us for the moment change the title of the sculpture to Bow and Arrow, would this change how the sculpture is perceived?

0

Share this post


Link to post

:laughing:

 

"Vote:

Approve

 

User:

XXXXXXXXXX

 

Comments:

Are the rockets sculpture coming from a comic strip accepted"

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1