"A Bowl of Stars"

The following note was written by a friend of mine shortly after an airline accident involving my airline. It happened during a night visual approach to the airport at Cali, Columbia. The weather was good in the mountainous terrain.

Preceding the accident, pilots had been questioning the merits of their training syllabus that professed the computer as God. Hands off, let the computer do it, it is all knowing.

It turns out the pilots were right to question the proceedures. The computer is only as good as the information it is given. It is only a tool, it does not create. A thought process takes place before the computer is told to execute it's solution. The computer is not responsible for the input that controls it's action. It's the hand and mind of man that lives with the result. Man needs to accept that credit whether good, bad or ugly.

This premise about the dependence and use of the computer in other applications holds the same weight. It can be used creatively but it can not create. It is just a tool and if used wisely by a creative person much like an artist with a brush in his hand, look out Mona Lisa.

Ron Hart

The Computer as God? As Tool?

My airline lost an aircraft and many lives on a night approach to Cali, Columbia. Fingers were pointed at all possible responsible parties. As the effluence of guilt spread around, a question was raised in my mind. Why are computers not flying airplanes? It occurred to me that the pilot is the last link. The last link to integrate Science, Machinery and Wisdom.

My note about the Cali accident addresses this question.

CALI...

A bowl of stars touched the black Pacific and in the darkness struggled to define the horizon.

Color-saturated computer images danced across six black screens and described with exacting preciseness the here and now, the plan, the systems. The silence of aerodynamic noise painted a picture of comfort. Connecting continents with a constant stream of scheduled air travel drenched us with the illusion that flight is routine. Flight is not routine.

A rivet was fitted with exactness. Each fluid line was fitted with a check valve and guarded by another, and another. Black screens beneath attentive eyes followed blips. Throttles moved, controls deflected, engines roared. Every participant contributed to the process as the completeness of flight evolved.

On a dark night in South America time became critical. Communication, technology, the human-condition, and failed or missing components lined up in such a way that the pilot became the last to face the challenge, the last check valve. The silence of aerodynamic noise stopped.

Embracing the challenge, reaching for perfection, accepting the pain and the pleasure is the life blood of our profession. We are the last check valve.

Captain John Paul Rogers

Chief Pilot San Francisco Base

Time to move it along...

Readers All,
A fellow aviator friend sent me the name Rick Broome recently and asked if I knew him? I didn't but I followed it up with an e-mail to Rick. Lo and behold I found out that Rick was one of the original charter members of the ASAA. One question led to another and I finally had to ask why he no longer participated? I have asked quite a few former members why they choose not to continue their memberships. Invariably the short answer is pretty much along the same lines; the ASAA has failed to meet their needs. As simple as that.
If you want to know more about Rick and how he has prospered in this genre please pay him a visit at his website http://www.rickbroome.com/ and leave him a message. He is a very prolific artist and I'm sure would love to hear from you. I have enjoyed my e-mail exchanges with him and I'm sure you will too.
As for me personally, I have put the ASAA in my own special place. I will continue to participate along with those that see the ASAA as a traditional artists society. It bothered me for awhile that the group wasn't a little more open minded. But I am now over it.
My intention is to stay involved and hopefully persuade the membership by example. Unfortunately to further my own needs as an artist I will need to also look elsewhere for the satisfaction. Along the way I'm hoping to keep people involved with the success of the ASAA as well as the success of our sister aviation artists societies.
I am currently involved with a group of like minded individuals of various persuasions. Our intent as best I can read is to promote the Aviation Arts in all of its forms while at the same time promote the methods of the traditional artists. I'm not talking about yet another society, what we need are fewer societies and more artists that share the same love of subject in whatever way they choose to make it visible.
The ASAA's Founders have done a great job of bringing the aviation art genre to where it is today. I have the greatest of respect for all of them and I consider them good friends. While the art and artists are deserving of all they have earned, the aviation arts are in need of a new vision. The commercial world's methods have moved on. Our group would like to open the eyes of the world to some great art by the 'whole host of artists' and their methods.
It's time to move beyond the divisive dialogue.



The following is a forward of a message exchange I received between two artist's that truly love the Aviation Arts. Joe Smith works at the MET in New York and Rick Broome has worked in the industry from his studio in Colorado Springs. You can visit his Boeing 727 which I think must have crash landed right in his studio. It appears that way to me. He then built his art studio around said 727. Enjoy! www.rickbroome.com



Hi Rick,
Thanks for your chunk of history, brings to life things that I only get to read about or hear second hand, if at all. I don't understand all of the rhymes or reasons for people leaving the ASAA as I'm only a newbiecompared to most in this conversation, nowhere near the artist most of youguys are. I'm more of a jack of all trades master of not a lot. I was verylucky to fall into my profession of the past 34 years as a Museum labelmaker. I enjoy what I do and have spent a lot of time at it.
It took me a long time to get outside of the Museum world and finallylook at all of the aviation artists I had only read about. I feel very blessed that I got to meet a few of my "Heroes" ( for want of a betterdescription) before they all have "Gone West". I have learned much and am most grateful for that. I have met some fellow artists whom I'm proud tosay I know them and some are even friends! I have tried to return to ASAAa bit of what has been given to me and hopefully I have succeeded at times.
I also found that I do not agree with the views of my elders of ASAA.Having worked in the Museum world for way to long, I have found that artis based upon change. It will always change. All I have to do is walkthrough the galleries and go from whatever time we have our earliest bitsof work to the latest. Some are great and others I could live without. I dohave my own personal tastes of art as we all do. Jackson Pollack I couldlive without, my own view, the Horse Fair one of my all time favorites. Myall time favorite show that I worked on was one of my 1st the Gold Show. Iwon't give a least favorite, a few fall into that category.
We will open an Egyptian Art show next week ( I can't spell the PharaohQueens name correctly ) with art from 5000 years ago and a modern showbringing in a live artist last week. A nice young lady named Kara Walkerand her take on things. ( Normally we can't stand live artists, they areusually not to bad but their staffs yuk!) Boy, how's that for a jump oftime! So for me it's a no brainier just my wondering of why so hard onchange?
The other point I want to make is how many digital artists are there?And out of that group how many are as good as say Ryan Church? And fromthat how many are airplane nuts? I figure after you have distilled it alldown and if 5 or 10 show up on our doorstep in the next few years it willbe a lot.
I don't think they will take over and run or even change ASAA. Afterall there are somewhere of 290 members right now. Even if they were allowed to join, become an artist member, run for office and win next yearit would be how many years to get to be el President? Not to mention thewonderful politics that they would have face all the way to the top and inoffice. So by the time all the smoke clears who will be left to argue allof this HS in 10 or 12 years. By that time something new might even take itplace to start a whole new argument. Makes me think about how theImpressionists got through it all with the experts at the Salon, guess whohad the last laugh. Of course to become famous you have to be what?
I do know I would love to meet and learn from these artists, hopefullywe will never stop learning, After all we are suppose to be a teaching Society. We need to also be students.
May I say I'm Glad to meet you,
Best,
Joe

I'm Back & A Little Birdie Told Me

Hi All,

The discussion continues concerning the digital/traditional art stonewall at the American Society of Aviation Artists. It is sometimes hard to see through the fog of some situations when your eyes are closed. Some might remember when blind flying, that is flying without visual reference was a big no no, until someone invented the gyro with a heading and horizon reference. Suddenly a whole new world opened and military and commercial aviation established a significant place in it.

I think most of the people that seem adverse to even an 'exploring event' concerning the digital question, seem to be repeating someone else's argument. Not much original thought. So I'm thinking it's probably from a singular source or maybe they only have one argument.

The concerns I'm hearing I don't understand. Why can't they see that all they have to do is ask the question? How did you do that Mr. Digiman? The traditionalist's don't always ask each other about their art because the final result is what they judge, not how they got there. Where did you get the references? Do you paint in the background first? How did you transfer them to your canvas? Did you draw them or trace them? Did you use a template? Is it true if you didn't get your reference from DG you aren't a true aviation artist in the traditional sense? Our (ASAA) Founders and charter members didn't all arrive at the final result in the same manner (I think?), tell me if I'm wrong. And, if they did we're talking about a whole new problem. Is this a religion... are we creating Icons here or are we being Iconoclasts, are we trying to destroy a traditional method? No, we are just trying to learn to understand and introduce a medium/method that is driving the commercial art market. The problem as I see it is... they are judging the medium from behind a wall of ignorance. I sense here the traditionalist as protectionist.

The very nature of our subject matter makes the representation of it in it's active state very difficult. Especially when compared to a traditional artist painting a still life. I'll have to admit... thank goodness for engineering drawing. As a tool, Keith Ferris has pioneered Descriptive Geometry in creating what I consider a major life's work and I don't see anyone on the immediate horizon that will match it. Why would anyone want to compete with the likes of Keith. He has been and still is one of a kind. Most artists would do well to find their own way to express themselves instead of learning his game. Because in the end you are judged by your own creativity, not how well you were able to copy someone else's method. Thank goodness that digital art has surfaced, someone such as myself can at least play with some new tools and maybe create a whole different arena to be judged. Those of you that haven't looked into CG at any level are in for a surprise. It will probably take me longer to get the hang of it than it did moving paint around on a canvas. It requires a different thought process and yes, I can create it with my own hand. The computer is DG on steroids. The digital artist creates what I consider a digital map, and much like DNA's Double Helix structure, is a launching pad. I don't much care if it is tangible or not. How it comes to life and presents itself visually makes no difference to me. This is a hurdle most traditional artists need to get over. If I create the map and a machine gives birth, it matters not to me. Again, Joe Public will decide my fate.

The ASAA is worried about photography becoming an accepted medium as I heard someone say, "what next, Photography?" By all means, I say 'yes' include it. Will a photographer ever become an Artist Fellow? If he is an Artist Photographer and deserves and earns it why not? Anyone can click the shutter, but it takes an artist to edit and compose. Anyone here ever heard of Ansel Adams? Was he not considered an artist? The key here is... you 'judge it' in it's category and in today's digital world it's applications are boundless. Does the trade magazine AWST include Aviation Photography in it's year end salute to Aviation Art? What's that all about? Now there's a potential for some dues paying members. A question is then asked of the guy with a camera... "are you an artist?" "No, I'm just a photographer," give me a break. He is being judged on his photography. There are people that take pictures and there are photographers that are artists. You will know the difference when you see it. I have seen many photos I would prefer over a painting. Why not be a part of a bigger picture instead of we all hide within a small group of traditional like minded artists, begging for corporate recognition and hand outs.

Has anyone heard, Jerry Garcia died. The deadheads are floundering, playing old soundtracks and still looking for a JG look alike.

Food for thought or not? Someone say something.

Fine Artist/CG Artist responds...

My taking on this blog idea was to elicit points of view from all comers. The blog itself has lot's of viewers which makes it worthwhile for me. I was hoping that more people would reply within the blogs environment. Instead, I find myself receiving opining e-mails and I just wonder whether or not it is out of a fear people have of someone finding out how they feel?

I was also hoping to get contributions from other areas of the spectrum concerning Aviation Art. It was not my sole intent to just express views on Digital versus Fine art. That conflict will right itself eventually on it's own merit. My own feelings have changed drastically just in this last week as I no longer worry about the viability of fine art organizations embracing CG artists.
My discovery of the CGSociety and it's vitality answers most of my questions. I intend to embrace both points of view because I see the creative freedom of CG and I also now plan to merge my traditional methods where they fit. My friends can continue where they are comfortable. I see no reason for there to be a conflict.

I received this e-mail today from Nghia Lam, a traditionally trained artist working in the CG world. It was a reply from a solicitation I made from within the CGTalk Forum about how I can best make an argument and quell some fears about what I feel to be a rather negative and narrow point of view from my fine artist friends.


Nghia says,

"In the market of fine art the original painting or statue represents the base currency of any subsequent printings or publishing's of the work. Much like the gold that the US treasury holds to represent the value of the dollar. This is something that digital art cannot simulate as there are no originals to determine a base value for the art. This might be something that most fine artists are afraid of.

As for the medium is concerned,,, I've found that the digital format allows me a greater amount of freedom in exploring a wider variety of styles and techniques that were not available to me as a traditional painter. My education was both in Victorian A La Prima painting and automotive design before all this CG stuff became popular. Now, I am working in the video games industry and the future looks very bright and exciting for digital art.

Contrary to many beliefs that there is a separation of art and artist in the new age of graphics I find that the more cg work I do it seems to make my traditional art improve faster than if I were just painting alone. People who want to grow in their creativity and expand horizons will find that going digital will allow much more flexibility in image creation. As an artist I will always encourage the use of new tools and discovery in the tradition of what art truly is. Remember that all forms of painting as they were invented had to endure ridicule and doubt before they were accepted as valid. So CG must go through the same growing pains. Now if you think that doing work in a 2d package is a leap wait until you try out 3d. Ha ha."

Good luck in your quest-
Nghia


Evil business skills used for good.

Nghia Lam


Thank you Nghia.

It's a New World...

"Journey to Mars"

America Airlines, MarsCruiser

I spent some time on a website yesterday that opened my eyes. I was at www.cgsociety.org where I was trying to find some background information concerning my dilemma with traditional versus digital art. I learned that CG means Computer Graphics.

Being a traditionally trained artist with a fascination for this new medium, I was trying to enlist some help with my understanding of what it is all about. The arguments I keep hearing are all about the end product and the suspicion that the computer software is doing all of the creating.

Mind you, I have only had these new tools for a very short time. I can't understand that while I have a hold on the stylus and I am making selections and inputs on my tablet, why would someone believe that I wasn't creating art while employing a superb set of tools?

I am guilty of trying to entice friends to give me their best argument from both sides of the fence. Because I cannot understand why an idea that originates in my mind and makes it's way to the world of the visible by way of a brush, tube of paint and on to a canvas, is more art than that same idea arriving by way of stylus, tablet, computer and inkjet printer. The archival qualities of oil paint are no longer a good argument. Do I sense that coming over the horizon is an oil spitting printer. Anyone out there hearing a plea?

A good friend and former art instructor sent me this message today, "I think that the medium is of no consequence -- the message is what matters." I like that.

My friend Yakel questions Art...

My friend Yakel asked me a question recently. Yakel is not an artist, but he is a New Yorker and so he is ultimately qualified to ask me questions about any subject. Mr. Vredor(Yakel) asks, "We have these big orange curtains hanging all over Central Park, you're an artist... what's 'that' all about anyhow?"

My friend was of course referring the artist Christy's conceptual extravaganza, "The Gates." An assembly of sorts... of gate like structures draped in orange curtains winding through his park. "Who is this guy and how in the world does this stuff qualify as art?", he asked me. My response was of course that Christy was indeed an artist and was quite well known for his 'off the wall' artistic endeavers. I went on to explain about the many projects Christy was responsible for and he still wasn't convinced, but accepts my vote.

Yakel and I did continue a conversation along the same lines and all I could do to convince him was give him this explanation. In the late nineteen-sixties and seventies, when I was in art school, those conceptual guys were drinking different stuff . He was happy with that.

The whole conversation made me think; Artists, creative people as a whole are allowed to express themselves in many ways, and the art world divides them up and places them in established categories. Tradition has a big vote, but tradition is an ever evolving creature. Changes in tradition can take a very long time and then when a leap in technology takes place, that change can be an overnight thing.

It is my belief we are in the middle of that 'overnight thing'. The era of change is our reality, the acceptance of a new speaking language ('ones and zeros') by corporate america and it's industries is here and real. The origin of the digital world as we find it today, can be traced back to the transitor's developement and the resultant early computers of many decades ago. The transitor was big because the heat of it's work could be easily dissipated, in contrast to what had been the then 'traditional' vacuum tube. It's small size was also, "a good thing" as Martha Stewart would say.

Traditional Artists as versus all of the 'other' kinds; It could be about "era's." An era's beginning's can usually be traced to huge changes in technology. So there have been many of them, the golden and not so golden and surely more to come. If an artist is old enough and lucky enough to have earned success during a Golden era, hopefully he will not be around at the era's end. So he won't have to suffer changes he may not understand.

Christy, an artist with a creative mind obviously has a different approach to presenting his art. I'm sure it was his original idea to hang drapes on the gates in Central Park. He couldn't have accomplished the end result without some major help. Similarly, if you had to paint a huge mural the same hold's true, you enlist some help. Do you still take credit? Michaelangelo did, it helped that he also planned it and plotted it, it was part of his creative input. Maybe your assistant suggests that your color is off a little compared to your original. You agree and it does take on a different light and you like it. Does the help now take credit for your original creative concept? I don't think so.

Christy's execution of his art on Central Park brings up another issue. It's not exactly a canvas he is using, so his work isn't saved on an archival survace as best I can tell. His effort is only recorded in our memory and supported by some photography, a few left over gates and some orange curtains. Definitely not your traditional approach.

Traditional versus the technological bump toward Digital Art; A few art organizations are afraid to embrace the digital artist into their fold. Some let them join but then won't let them perform. They collect their dues perhaps in hopes of converting them, in fear the computer and it's software will become the sole creative element. The 'stylus and tablet' that are the interface between the artist and the computer, can not yet and may never provide the tactile feel of painting with a brush. As a traditional artist I consider that a handicap, so if it's the only tool a creative digital artist has been trained to use, I think we are on equal ground. I have no problem with putting my painting on the same wall alongside a digital work. He's just another artist and can probably draw better than I can anyhow. Drawing ability is not the only criteria for judging an artist's ability, although it helps if he is lacking in other areas. We don't have to compete for the same recognition because we use different tools. If worthy they could both win awards by our peers, but in the end 'joe public' will decide which it is they prefer.

As a traditionally trained artist I can't say that I completely understand the digital medium but I do understand the artist's creative instinct. It's that instinct coupled with the facility to complete the project that is the mark we as artists seek.

Creativity I believe crosses the bounds of fantasy; A century apart Christy and Henry Ford are comparitively creative people that performed in totally different theatres. If the technologies of today were available to Henry Ford and he were able to design and create his car today and sign it as a piece of art, and take the next step to fantasy by pressing the 'print' button for a thousand more just like it, his name would still be all over it. That is to say... It shouldn't matter how the creation becomes real, it's all about the appreciation of original thought.

Launch Christy ahead a hundred years and have him drape the moon in the "Stars and Stripes" he is definitely going to tick off some Russians. Can't please everyone when it comes to art and tradition is the ever changing animal. You can never go back home as they say, and a new ERA begins each day.

Sweet words...

A very dear and close friend called me yesterday. I hadn't talked with him for awhile but we share a mutual interest in the world of art. He is my former boss in the form of Chief Pilot at my former employer American Airlines. We agreed we would meet up in San Francisco next week to attend yet another Retirement Party for a few of our former pilot friends. I'm looking forward to it.

Airline pilots are a close knit group. Former airline pilots, those of us that are forced away from our livelyhood due to our age, though not as close knit (because of the old time distance equation) still share a concern for each other. The retirement party, although it is a celebration of a life that is like no other, has it's downside. It's the awakening call that the real party is over. We want to be there to ease them into their new life. They will no longer hear the question... "Captain, what should we do now?"

Fortunately my friend, we'll call him John Paul Rogers, had another life in the making. John is also an artist, which includes the visual and the written word. It is one of his poems I want to share with you that he composed just before his retirement in 2001.

The Cockpit

There is a place where only pilots meet

A place like no other place

A small place

No chairs for visitors

A place where moonless nights contrast

with morning rays to set the tone

A tone of extremes

Where aerodynamic noise is silent

And catastrophic events breed silence

There is a place where accountability is accepted

Where performance is measured

Where philosphy abounds

And lifetime bonds are formed

There is a place where teamwork

and discipline are supreme

A place where perfection is the expectation

There is a place where only pilots meet

And I will miss it

Captain John Paul Rogers

American Airlines Retired

July 2001

I'm happy I can share this with you because I could not say it as well.

Thank you JP.