Rec.Aviation.Homebuilt

November 24, 1998

My wife and I just got back from a long weekend in Washington, DC. On Friday we toured the Garber facility, which is the aircraft restoration and storage facility of the National Air and Space Museum. Of the roughly 150 aircraft there, we saw about 125. Fantastic tour - if you ever get a chance, go. You need to make reservations, but no one who has an interest in aviation should miss it. We saw Rosco Turner's Meteor Thompson Trophy racer, the German Horton Brothers' Gotha WWII jet flying wing, five different Japanese aircraft of which there are no other examples, and dozens of other one-of-a-kind airplanes. In the afternoon we spent a few hours in the NASM, and looked at more wonderful airplanes. On Saturday and Sunday, with my wife reporting that she was "airplaned out" we went to the Holocaust Museum, and spent much of the rest of our time in several of the art museums. As we left Washington, I was struck by a few thoughts that I would like to share with this group, although I'm sure I'm "preaching to the choir".

I love art, and thoroughly enjoyed admiring the wonderful results of sculptors' and painters' efforts, including African art, Chinese art, Hindu and Muslim art, and the art of American masters. Some of what we saw dated from 5000 years BC, and yet was made using techniques that are still not fully understood. Yet through the hours of admiring these priceless creations of man's mind and skill, I kept coming back to one fundamental question: "what is art?"

Art is a creation of man's mind, spirit, and skill. We admire these creations for a number of reasons: they have exquisite form and shape. They are lovely to look at. They may serve a useful function - as in carved and decorated bowls and household utensils, or they may have been created only to please the eye and spirit. They are extremely rare. They may be the only one ever created like that, or they may be the only that is now left of many. They are monuments to those who created them. They may be the creation of a single artist, or they may be the creation of an entire culture, with the individual artisans' identity now lost. They may be made with care and infinite skill, or they may be crude and slapped together. In fact, many people, when faced with a particularly crude piece, rightfully question its characterization as "art". There were some pieces preserved on the mall in Washington that are so crude and slapdash that one should question their inclusion for any reason other than the fact that they are unique. They may be unique, but does uniqueness alone make them "art"?

In almost every way, the aircraft we saw on Friday meet these criteria. They are wonderful creations of man's mind, spirit and skill. They are lovely to look at. The shapes are, almost without exception, finely tuned to cheat the wind and gravity, and this produces shapes that delight the senses. They are extremely rare - some are the only one ever created like that, while others are the only that is now left of many. They are monuments to those who created them. Some are the creation of a single visionary, while others are the creation of large teams of designers, engineers and craftsmen, with the individual team members' identity frequently lost or forgotten. Aircraft are generally made to serve a useful function - to achieve some "mission" - but others may have been created only to lift the spirit. Aircraft are one of the most perfect examples of form following function, which results in shapes and designs that are frequently almost organic, and which appeal to us in ways that touch our souls. More so than "art", aircraft are far more often made with extreme care and great skill, even though some aircraft may be crude and slapped together. Rarely, however, is a successful aircraft truly crude. It may have been made quickly, but poor workmanship in aircraft can exact a terrible penalty.

So why are aircraft not considered "art" by most people? Is it because they have all been made within the last century? This does not hold, because much of the art in the museums of the mall are contemporary or within the past century. Is it because many aircraft are implements of war and conflict? Many of the finest examples of art in Washington are weapons - swords, spears, knives, armor - or celebrate great wars and conflicts. Is it because they were not intended to be things of beauty? I doubt that any aircraft designer ever created a design without considering to some extent that it should look good, or at least "right", to him. Is it because aircraft are not unique? Many aircraft preserved by the Smithsonian are literally the last example left in the world. If these are lost, there will be no more, and a reproduction will never be completed - the cost would be too great. Besides, the result would always be considered a "reproduction", not an "original". Is it because aircraft are made by industries using industrial tools? This may be closer to the truth, but virtually all artists' tools are now made by industrial methods. The aluminum, iron and steel that some sculptors use would not be available as a medium were it not for a vast industry to produce it. Is the aluminum and steel in an aircraft different somehow? Even paints and brushes are now almost all made in factories by industrial methods. Is it because engineers are not "artists"? Many of us are, and even those who do not practice the traditional "arts" nevertheless revel and delight in the creative processes that take an idea and turn it into a tangible something that works, that does what was intended, perhaps in a uniquely elegant way, and which becomes an article of pride. Engineers just work in a different medium than most traditional "artists".

The art world mourns if a work of art is lost to war, vandalism or disaster. Yet if a rare aircraft is lost, is that any less a tragedy? Perhaps if we treated aircraft as art, we would have been more careful with the legacy that is even now slipping away. I certainly believe that the volunteers we met in the Garber facility, restoring wonderful, one-of-a-kind aircraft because they love them, treat them as art. We need to support this effort in every way we can.

Sorry for the rant, but I needed to get this off my chest

Bob

Copyright 1998, Robert T. Chilcoat