Talk:Fallen Astronaut

outdoor sculpture

Of course this is an outdoor sculpture. There is no "indoors" on the Moon. JIP | Talk 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

link

The link to the High Res photo at NASA is returning a 404 (12-6-2006)

flag

My question is whether the American flag on the moon is art.Kondspi 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A flag is a symbol, not a piece of art... So the answer would be no. Check-Six 22:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only art on moon

There's a secret art exhibit that was snuck onto the moon. NY Times coverage of it can be seen at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70811F93E591A7493C0AB178AD95F4D8685F9&scp=1&sq=art+on+the+moon%3F&st=p

It's also been written about on greg.org: http://greg.org/archive/2008/02/28/the_moon_museum.html

I'm removing the reference to Fallen Astronaut as being the only art on the moon. Simenzo (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is another installation of art on the moon, announced in February 2024: "A series of small sculptures by Jeff Koons have been left on the surface of the Moon by the Odysseus lander, the first spacecraft built in the United States to land on Earth’s only natural satellite since Apollo 17 in 1972." The article goes on to summarize the history of art placed on the moon: "Koons—and the others who participated in the mission—are not the first to be fascinated with the idea of sending his art into space. In an early move, the crew of Apollo 15 placed Belgian artist Paul Van Hoeydonck’s aluminum sculpture, Fallen Astronaut (1971), on the moon. Beginning in the 1980s, other projects, such as NASA’s Getaway Special program and “Ars Ad Astra,” have also embarked on creating and exhibiting art in space." Source: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jeff-koons-moon-phases-space-odysseus-2440372 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.14.106 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Can someone supply an actual citation for the interview in De Morgen? Dthvt 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

950 Fallen Astronauts

The article Fallen Astronaut and Paul Van Hoeydonck contains since long the claim;

In May 1972, Scott learned that Van Hoeydonck planned to make more replicas and sell them. Feeling that this would be a violation of the spirit of their agreement, Scott tried to persuade Van Hoeydonck to refrain, but was unsuccessful; 950 signed replicas went on sale for $750 apiece at the Waddell Gallery of New York.

I, Walter, have been in extensive contact with knowledgeable people regarding this topic after receiving an email about this part in bold on the dutch language OTRS queue.

The information I have received states that it is incorrect that "950 signed replicas went on sale for $750 apiece at the Waddell Gallery of New York". It is true that there where plans to do this and even advertisement for is was made. But after very negative responds by the NASA Paul Van Hoeydonck retracted his permission. No replicas where sold.

The persons with who I am in contact have written a letter after reading this claim on Wikipedia to Paul Van Hoeydonck to ask of that was correct about those 950 copies that where supposed to be sold for $750 a piece. Paul Van Hoeydonck has send that letter back with a handwritten responds on it. Paul Van Hoeydonck writes that only 50 replicas where ever made. Most of those are still unsigned in the possession by Paul Van Hoeydonck. Around 12 are at various places. Paul Van Hoeydonck writes that he has never received any money for those replaces, except for one.

A scan of this letter is in OTRS Responds by Paul Van Hoeydonck

The emails regarding this are under Ticket#: 2007111010011079

I am further contact to see how the information provided best can be included, mainly a question of copyright and privacy matters. For now the claim about the 950 copies sold (with no source) must/can not be included.

This claim basically says that Paul Van Hoeydonck has acted dishonorable, broke his word and sold out for the money. Before one claims that you must have very good proof. We have now a scan of letter written by Paul Van Hoeydonck refuting this. I find that a good source. (there are also other sources listed in the emails, specialized art books). --Walter 20:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unable to access your evidence - Please place it in a more accessible format... Check-Six 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of trying to arrange that. But that the sources are readable and available to all online is best but not necessary. I point to information in OTRS, like also is done for permissions for pictures. WMF OTRS staff can access that. Besides this I have also received sources from a book and the text fragments about this topic supporting this. But you can not read that online. It is a dutch language artbook published in 1980. I have found it in the collection of 3 public libraries in Flanders. I add the book as source to the article. --Walter 10:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevant information; NASA News Release 72-189 - This report from the NASA states that "The 950 replicas of the "Fallen Astronaut" figurine signed by the sculptor have been advertised for sale by the Waddell Gallery of New York at a price of $750 apiece." This in not disputed by Paul Van Hoeydonck. Only that the advertised plans where executed. --Walter 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm from it.wp and have access to OTRS: how can I control source? (all mails are written in a language that I do not understand) DracoRoboter 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that this is not convenient but that is a problem that everybody has depending about what it is about and from where. If you can not read it yourself then you will need to trust on others who can. --Walter 17:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what if I will not? (Just asking...) Sorry but you just wrote "change it is wrong" in it.wp and someone ask me why. I think I have to answer something more reliable than "momma said" DracoRoboter 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Turn it around. I say I have information saying it is wrong about those 950 copies sold. In Wikipedia the information in the articles is supposed to be backed up by sources. There is no source listed that says the 950 copies where sold. There is only a source saying that this was advertised. This results in that the article can say the where sold. That would be against core Wikipedia princyple. You do not need to proof something is wrong, you need to proof something is correct. --Walter 18:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I expect to have soon permission to put some info online in public and I will put translations with it. --Walter 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Walter, you can e-mail me at webmaster@check-six.com, and I will host your evidence for public view. Check-Six 20:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is about privacy and permission, not about hosting facilities. I have the necessary permissions. The letter is on commons. Image:Brief Jan Stalmans - Paul Van Hoeydonck 11-09-2007.jpg --Walter 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also put some more information about the book source on that page commons:Image:Brief_Jan_Stalmans_-_Paul_Van_Hoeydonck_11-09-2007.jpg#Other_relevant_source --Walter 13:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Slate article

Sculpture on the moon: Paul van Hoeydonck's Fallen Astronaut... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Very good I thought - I've added some key points, but plenty more could be added. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Jebediah Kerman

See edit [1]. Who is that? AFAIK there was no one with such name on the plaque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1148:B0BA:1914:1D32:55A0:1E89:6318 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Removed. (It's an internet meme originating in the Kerbal Space Program. In other words, it's vandalism). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant info on who wasn't included

Why is stuff on who wasn't on it included - This page is supposed to be a description of an artefact not a discussion of someone's opinion on who should have been on it based on their own made up criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.51.15 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(I have taken the liberty of moving your post to the bottom of the page, as is customary for new sections). There is a rather small countable number of astro- and cosmonaut fatalities that occurred before 1971. I'd say that should be the criterion. For comparison, we have a list of Astronaut fatalities (both during training and during actual spaceflight). I haven't checked the names you removed here (haven't checked for completeness either), but don't you think it's reasonable to also list the omitted names when it's such a small number?

I don't think non-astronaut fatalities should be included. Sure, that is an opinion, but since the sculpture is called Astronaut and looks like an astronaut it think it's a tolerable one. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Image could be original research

I have issues with the scan of a letter purported to show a conversation between someone and the artist. It could be original research, especially considering that it mentions Wikipedia. Even if that someone is notable, it would be OR for that person to put the image up themselves. Additionally, the letter's provenance is unknown; I could have just as easily produced it myself, if only I spoke Dutch. I'm leaving the image, and inline content probably derived from it, as-is — I've only tagged it, because there may be some special situation I'm not aware of.

— VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land  04:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know; I assume you're aware the person who uploaded and added the image started the 950 Fallen Astronauts thread above? I first found your Section OR tag confusing, because the text was generally well-cited and I didn't know you were talking about the image. I replaced the section tag with a more precise in-line OR tag. (I also removed the duplicate link to the image, which improperly attempted to use But I don't know that "OR" is the right term; it seems to be a euphemism for what you seem to be accusing Walter (talk · contribs) of, which would be fraud. You also raise an interesting point about Wikipedia; I wonder if we have a conflict-of-intrest situation? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, MediaWiki just informed me about this. What a blast from the past. I have just read again Talk:Fallen_Astronaut#950_Fallen_Astronauts. I must say that my previous self has explained that good. I have improved the translation on the page on commons; File:Brief Jan Stalmans - Paul Van Hoeydonck 11-09-2007.jpg I have also checked OTRS and the emails and files are still there. --Walter (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Karada (talk · contribs) just added coordinates 26.5°N 4.7°E / 26.5; 4.7 to the article. I question the source of this (was not able to tag "cite needed" because of how the coord template works.)

• Apollo 15 gives the landing coordinates as 26°7′55.99″N 3°38′1.90″E
• That article also says "Scott then drove the rover to a position away from the LM, where the television camera could be used to observe the lunar liftoff. Scott set up a memorial nearby to the cosmonauts and astronauts who were known to have died up to that time, with a plaque bearing their names and a Fallen Astronaut statuette".
• The difference in longitude is about 1.2 degrees. Since the mean radius of the Moon is 1,737.10 km, that means one degree is that number times 2 pi / 360, or 30.3 km. This puts it 36.4 km east of the LM, which is obviously too far away for him to walk back, and for the camera to record the liftoff.
• The difference in latitude is about 0.4 degrees (give or take), which is about 12 km; still too far. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, both coordinates give a combined error of 38.3 km. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Moon tourism category

It is not reasonable to categorize this article (or that of any other object on the Moon) under "Tourism on the Moon". There are no reliable sources cited saying that any company is planning to take tourists there, so it constitutes original research, and also violates the principle that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: I have explained you on Talk:Tourism on the Moon. We have numerous sources that many companies planning to take tourists to Moon. If you think that you need source for each and every tourist site then how it is possible? They are going to Moon means they will watch it. There are 100s of craters on Moon, but we don't get source for each crater that XYZ company is planning to visit ABC crater on Moon. Fallen Astronaut is only true art piece on Moon. Memorials itself made for tourist purpose so that people will visit those memorials and will memorize martyrs. So it is not WP:OR, we have enough sources for company's planning for tour to Moon, no necessity of source for each claim.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And I have explained to you, you don't categorize them as tourism, if there is no verifiability that they are planned tourist attractions. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not lunar tourism turns out to be real, which is a completely different discussion.

This is your own original research. You have absolutely no basis for claiming "Memorials itself made for tourist purpose so that people will visit those memorials and will memorize martyrs". "Fallen Astronaut is only true art piece on Moon" is an absolutely irrelevant argument; that doesn't prove that people will necessarily go there.

You seem to have an WP:AGENDA of pushing lunar tourism, instead of building an encyclopedia. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: You are talking like I have some stakes in Lunar tourism. I'm building Wikipedia because many other memorials and tourist sites do have such kind of Tourism category. I said "F A is only artwork" was not OR but it was from sources like [2]. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If any tourist company makes plans to visit India and they just have Tajmahal and Ajanta caves on their visiting list, then according to some people rest of hundreds tourist sites are not "tourist" site because XYZ company don't mention it or does not made plan to visit it. (Though there is no source that Moon tourism companies will not visit Fallen Astraunaut). --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  20:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing Fallen Astronaut as a lunar tourist site

[Moved this thread from Talk:Tourism on the Moon where it was originally, improperly posted.]

@JustinTime55: You should have not removed category Tourism on Moon from Fallen Astronaut [3]. It doesn't come under WP:CRYSTAL. "Crystal" says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future." Tourism on Moon is not "speculation", it is something certainly going to happen in very near future for which we have sources too. Space companies have decided price of tickets too, booking is already started even for Mars tour. Read Mars One. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that tourism on the Moon is "crystal ball"; the reason it is not appropriate to categorize Fallen Astronaut as lunar tourism, is because of the speculation that these tourism companies (assuming they pan out) will be taking people to the Fallen Astronaut site. That is also unverified, and constitutes original research, (unless you can cite sources saying that is what the companies intend. The only "attractions" you have sourced so far is the far side and Earthrise.) The same can be said for all of your assumptions about the prior landing sites. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: I want to make you clear. It doesn't matters any space agency will take tourists to "F A"or not. Only question is does F A is possible tourist site or not? If you visit any nation and your tourist company doesn't show you some Caves then according to you those caves are not tourist sites. As per common knowledge every cave, memorial, temple, waterfall etc are tourists sites, it doesn't matters tourist companies visit it or not. So these memorials on Moon are "obvious" tourist sites, it doesn't matters if any company mention it or not. Still they clearly mention that they will visit Moon. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you are misusing this page ([Talk:Tourism on the Moon]] to discuss the Fallen Astronaut categorization; that article has its own talk page where this discussion is appropriate.

I want to "make you clear." Possible tourist site does not count; it certainly does matter whether any company will take tourists there or not. Our no original research policy states that if it is not verified by a reliable published source, then it does not belong in the Wikipedia.

You also don't seem to understand WP:CRYSTAL very well; once again: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future." You say: "Tourism on Moon is not "speculation", it is something certainly going to happen in very near future for which we have sources too." You have a strange definition of "very near future": it is now 2015, and the companies predict 2020 to 2043; that's five to twenty-eight years away. When John F. Kennedy started NASA on its Apollo program in 1961, it was by no means considered certain that we would achieve the goal in eight years. And companies which claim they are going to do something, for profit, in 5 to 28 years, with no real proof of the means by which they intend to do it (rocket and spacecraft hardware, tracking and control capabilities, etc.), are hardly reliable sources that justify stating that something is "certainly going to happen"; that by consensus is considered the very essence of WP:CRYSTAL. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: I don't know what OR you are seeing? Should I give you source that "memorials" are known as "tourist sites"? Does "memorials" in US are not "tourist sites"? Here nothing is OR. And it is your OR that such kind of tourism will not happen. Why you are predicting future that such kind of tourism will not happen? We are going by sources, and sources says that it will happen in between 2020-2043 which is very near future. (one source in article even claims 2018). If you think that such kind of tourism will not happen then it is just your personal opinion or personal perception of the facts.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is on you; you are the one making the prediction. I am not predicting it won't happen (or anything else). Demanding proof of a negative (saying something, then saying "prove it isn't true!" is never reasonable. And you also don't understand that the issue isn't whether tourism will happen or not; it is whether the companies will use these specific sites. Your "common sense" (which is neither common nor sensical) is not good enough for Wikipedia:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.]

JustinTime55 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Moon tourism will happen somewhere between 2020-2043" is not my personal prediction, it is what I'm writing according to sources. While you are predicting that "it will not happen" is your "personal opinion" and you are yet to provide any source for that. Better you read this to clear your doubts. Thank you.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You apparently are incapable of keeping one issue separate from another in your mind. Read what I just wrote again: I am not talking about whether or not lunar tourism will happen. I am not "predicting it will not happen." I am talking about categorizing Fallen Astronaut as lunar tourism. That is inappropriate; that is original research which you cannot verify, unless and until such time, if any, that one of the companies (say Golden Spike) comes out with a press release saying "We're going to take people to see the Fallen Astronaut." Also, since you have this trouble, I am moving this thread out of here and over to Talk:Fallen Astronaut where it belongs.JustinTime55 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm again saying, it doesn't matters which sites company chooses to visit, in single visit one can't tour entire satellite Moon. "Memorials" are always "tourist sites". And you are claiming to be very well educated of Wikipedia policies then please kindly don't do any personal attack on my "commonsense" or "nonsense" whatever I have, it is against Wikipedia policies. It seems that, it is not much fruitful to have debate with you. You have already created your boundaries or POV and you are not willing to come out of it at any cost. I think we should wait for other more sensible people than me to comment.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing touristic about it. You provide no references, so categorizing it as such is WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL at best. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing if it will become a tourist site. That's why the category would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. If you have good sources talking about it being a potential tourist site then you could possibly add a blurb to the article but it would probably need be a pretty good source (i.e. a study).--Craigboy (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is clearly nothing to do with tourism. Maybe it will be one day, maybe not. Until it is, it should not be categorised as such. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallen Astronaut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217201311/http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/caption_direct.jsp?photoId=AS15-88-11894 to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/caption_direct.jsp?photoId=AS15-88-11894

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallen Astronaut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005080024/http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?photoId=AS15-88-11894 to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?photoId=AS15-88-11894

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Robert Henry Lawrence Jr.

I can understand why the names of two Russian cosmonauts were missing from the list on the plaque, given the secrecy of the Soviet government. But was any explanation given as to why Robert Henry Lawrence Jr. was overlooked? His omission seems strange given that the list includes many others whose deaths were not space-related, such as Bassett, See, and Gagarin etc. JezGrove (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion page is how to improve the Wikipedia article. It is Wikipedia's policy not to judge the outside world.

But, to answer your question: Lawrence was not a NASA astronaut, he was in the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program which was canceled by the time David Scott made his Apollo 15 flight and commissioned this memorial; perhaps that was why Scott chose to omit him. Being "space-related" is not the point; Scott's intent was to include astronauts and cosmonauts, including those who were in training. The astronaut's plane crash deaths were indeed "space-related" as flying the T-38 was required as part of their training. Bassett and See, especially, were flying in support of their Gemini 9 mission. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just curious about Lawrence's omission since his WP article calls him an astronaut, and although he had flown no space missions he is among the honorees commemorated at the Space Mirror Memorial. Meanwhile, the Fallen Astronaut plaque includes Edward Givens, who also flew no missions, died in an automobile accident, and isn't on the Space Mirror Memorial list. The inclusion of Givens but not Lawrence struck me as odd, and I was merely asking whether the absence of Lawrence's name had been explained like those of the missing cosmonauts' names were. Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul Van Hoeydonck

Why there is no page dedicated to the artist Paul Van Hoeydonck is incredible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjohn1970 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a page, but in Dutch: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Van_Hoeydonck Here is my translation of the text there (excluding links, titles, captions, and bibliography). Anyone is welcome to adapt it to the purposes of English-language Wikipedia. NB: The Paleis voor Schonen Kunsten = Palais des Beaux-Arts; it is in Brussels. The Guggenheim show was "ZERO: Countdown to Tomorrow, 1950s-60s." Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_(art)

Introduction In 1941 he took an evening class in drawing at the Antwerp Academy and later worked in the studio of Jos Hendrickx. Van Hoeydonck holds a graduate degree in art history from the Kunsthistorisch Instituut in Antwerp. He also completed coursework at the Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis and Oudheidkunde in Brussels. Style and Work During a brief period beginning in 1955 Van Hoeydonck pursued geometric abstraction. Paul Van Hoeydonck became a member or co-founder of the “Art Abstrait,” “Formes,” and “Art Construit” artist groups. In 1957 he completed the first of his monochromatic, white, abstract “Light Works.” In 1956, 1957, and 1959 he had one-person shows in the well-known Saint-Laurent gallery in Brussels. In 1961 and 1963 solo shows took place in the Paleis voor Schone Kunsten. He exhibited, respectively, his “plexi-reliefs with light effects” and “future cities.” In 1959 Paul Van Hoeydonck exhibited together with Guy Vandenbranden in the avant-garde Galleria Pater in Milan. There he and Vandebranden met internationally known artists such as Lucio Fontana and Piero Manzoni. With his plexi-reliefs he abandoned the flat surface and began to use plays of light and shadow along with refraction to dematerialize substance. In 1961 publication of a manifesto authored by the most important Belgian critic of the time, Jan Walravens, accompanied the “Bonhommes et monocles de Paul Van Hoeydonck—peintre du ciel” show at the P. Vanderborght gallery. In 1965 critics Jean Jean Dypréau and Pierre Restany included him in the controversial “Pop Art, Nieuwe Realisme” show at the Paleis voor Schone Kunsten.

Fallen Astronaut on the Moon Van Hoeydonck is mainly remembered in connection with human space exploration. He featured planets and constellations in his paintings. In 1971 the Apollo 15 astronauts placed his ‘Fallen Astronaut’ statuette on the Moon. In September 2014 a Paul Van Hoeydonck retrospective, “Paul Van Hoeydonck. From Zero to the Moon,” took place in Antwerp’s Callewaert Vanlangendonck gallery. In October 2014 the gallery’s owners, Yoeri Vanlangendonck and Brecht Callewaert, accompanied the then 89-year-old artist to New York for the opening of the ZERO exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum, in which work by him was included. In Brussels in October 2015 Paul Van Hoeydonck was included in the “Pop Art in Belgium” show assembled by the ING Art Center. On that occasion the artist installed several groupings of cast figures, including his Musica Celeste and Space Guardians. An accompanying chronology demonstrated how Pop Art had been supported by certain forward-thinking collectors (such as Dr. Hubert Peeters). His 'Fallen Astronaut' was also included in the exhibition. The fact that his son Patrick (1959-1984) was also an artist is not widely known. He exhibited works of sculpture and ceramics internationally. His career abruptly ended with his suicide. In January 2016 Van Hoeydonck, at the age of ninety, married Marleen Meyers. Honors A Royal Decree of 26 November 2014, effective the same day, raised Van Hoeydonck to a Knighthood in the Order of Leopold. Trivia Paul Van Hoeydonck would have preferred that his image of the Fallen Astronaut not have received that title, since the statuette was intended to represent all of humanity and not just the deceased astronauts and cosmonauts. The intention was for the figure to stand upright on the lunar surface and not lie flat on its back. Also not part of the plan was for Apollo 15’s Commander David Scott and Lunar Module Pilot James Irwin to leave near it a plaque bearing the names of the space explorers who had lost their lives up to that time. Both objects remain near the last position where the Lunar Roving Vehicle parked, some distance eastward of the landing site of the Falcon moon lander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.106.93 (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• So make it! :-) Buffs (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I did what I could, by providing the translation. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.106.93 (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)