Why "Leonardo?" Past, Present and Future

The development of the journal Leonardo is traced from its beginnings as an idea in the mind of its founder, Frank Malina, through 20 years of publication. The need for a professional journal for artists sparked its creation in 1968, and Leonardo has served since then as a forum of exchange by and for artists and others interested in the contemporary arts. The importance of incorporating developments in science and technology into artmaking has remained a primary focus of the journal. Change is a part of our world. Not to use it is to tie our hands behind our backs. When the whole world is changing, how can art be static? -Frank J. Malina [1] I. THE FORMATIVE YEARS Frank Malina was a man who embraced change and synthesis as means to a better world. He already had achieved eminence in several fields of endeavor-research engineer, director of scientific research and visual artist-when he had the ideas which led to the publication of Leonardo. As his work and life evolved, moving forward from one field to the next, it was natural that he would integrate his knowledge from previous experience into whatever work was at hand. As an aeronautical and rocket engineer pioneer, he certainly knew that change was an inevitable fact of the present and future. Yet as a humanitarian whose life experience was shaped by World War II, he was aware that scientists and engineers should not be the only ones involved in directing the changes wrought by technology; artists in particular should be instrumental in developing technology toward humane ends. was my feeling that one way in curbing the mis-use of technology might be if we could, through the arts, emotionally prepare young people to see the aesthetic, positive side of things and also then respond by seeing the negative [2]. As an artist he sought to integrate his knowledge of technology and scientific working methods into his own evolving artwork. And as an editor Pamela Grant-Ryan (editor, musician), Leonardo, 2020 Milvia St., Berkeley, CA 94704, U.S.A. Received 24 May 1987. he sought to create an interdisciplinary forum documenting synthesis and change toward the creation of a synthetic worldview. Perhaps his most frustrating career move was into the field of art. Malina began painting professionally full-time in 1953 after 20 years of working in technical fields. Trained as an engineer, he attempted to begin his artistic investigations in the usual way: to delve into the documented studies written by experts-in this case by artists. Whereas technical and scientific advancement are based on each generation of investigators building upon the exhaustively documented work that has gone before, he found to his amazement no significant relevant body of literature written by artists about their work, their methods, their discoveries or ideas. He expressed frustration that the lack of appropriate documentation in the arts caused artists to waste enormous time and energy duplicating each others' technical discoveries. Indeed, when he began to work on his Lumidyne system of kinetic art [3], he was unable to find any precedent for kinetic painting and believed himself to be the first artist doing this type of work. When he began exhibiting his kinetic works in the mid-1950s, he learned of one artist, Thomas Wilfred, who had been producing kinetic works since 1905 [4]. During the time Malina was discovering that artists did not have a history of, or a literary vehicle for, exchanging ideas and technical information among themselves, he began also to experience firsthand the political powerlessness of the artist. Then as now, the decision-making in the art world was in the hands of a group of non-artists, such as gallery owners, art critics, scholars and museum curators, who had assumed niches of eminence in explaining, promoting and disseminating art. By contrast, in the technical and scientific professions, documentation by the originators of the work has always appeared first, followed by explanation and comment by the popularizers, science writers and historians. Further, the decision-making in scientific research is dominated by the scientists and engineers themselves. The establishment 'supporting' the arts was at best not interested in-and at worst opposed to-innovative art such as technological or kinetic art. This kind of art was hard to analyze, hard to sell, often hard to display and sometimes hard to repair and maintain-considerations surely not central to artistic significance. Except for a few scattered theoreticians, the individuals writing about art were engaged primarily in the business hype of selling yesterday's ideas, since that which has already gained widespread acceptance makes for the best merchandise. Meanwhile, at a time when scientists and researchers in other disciplines were exchanging ideas and information at an ever-increasing rate, contemporary, exploratory artists seeking to extend the boundaries of art were working in relative intellectual isolation with no formal system of mutual support. In the midst of a revolution in communication and technology, artists were effectively out of communication with other artists, with other professions and with the entire rapidly changing, rapidly shrinking world community-all of whom, in return, needed very much to hearfrom the artist. It was not a scenario that suited Frank Malina's ideas of the artist's place in society. As Malina's artistic explorations continued to evolve through various forms and media [5], he began to discuss the

Art · Visual arts · Aesthetic Perception and Analysis

• Memoir

  George A Agoston•Leonardo•1993

  Add to list

• The Development of the Journal Environment of Leonardo

  Alkim Almila Akdag Salah, Alkım Almila Akdağ Salah et al.•Leonardo•2012

  Add to list

• Electric Light as a Medium in the Visual Fine Arts

  Frank J Malina•Leonardo•1975

  Add to list

• Kinetic Painting

  Frank J Malina•Leonardo•2007

  Add to list