19.68
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
I have friends in Tucson. I may not make it this March, but perhaps in 2024. Gary |
3.31
#...
·
|
|---|
|
That would be great...my 30th year as AD. Let's stay in touch: prejto at oberlin.edu https://arizonachambermusic.org/series/festival-2023/ P |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
An interesting group that I stumbled upon. In late March I'm participating in an art exhibition in Stockholm Sweden. Artworks printed on heavy water colour paper. The question and its answer, how to make Art from astrophoto images, is not a straight line. As some stated above, it takes both craftsmanship and artistic idea to pass into the realms of Art. However I strongly believe that a scientific and pleasing to the eye image will pass as Art as long as there is a person there to admire the picture without any formal knowledge of the content. I also believe, and this is what I try to do, that adding a clue or inspire a thought pattern for the viewer that goes beyond identifying nebula XYZ is a way to move the image into a place where non AP people might put the artwork on their wall. It will be a pleasure following the discussion here and I'll be happy to post examples if appropriate. J |
10.80
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
It is a very interesting subject and coming from an artistic background myself (My entire family are painters… and I’m a musician / sound designer by trade… and now may I dare say an astrophotographer) art takes a very important place in my life. My personal view on the subject is that art in its essence starts with an intent, something deeply personal to its creator… we may all have different versions of that intent in our artistic endeavours, and that may well change and mature over time but to me at least my personal intent is to showcase the sky hidden beauty through the photographic medium and trigger wonder, emotions and hold the viewer attention. Colour palette, framing, processing etc… all of these are tricks that I use with this one intent in mind…. But above all else I’m doing it to trigger these feelings within myself, and when I do, the artistic process has fulfilled its purpose and it’s time to let it go and share it with others. To me art is created when others see the image and emotions are triggered (good or bad). Before the act of sharing you have only created an object in stasis waiting to be discovered... What happens after art is shared is another thing, with folks loving it, hating it, critiquing it, thinking its beautiful, thinking it’s fake etc… all that is beyond your control. Watching your work live its life as an artist can elevate or destroy you from the inside. There is a fine balance to strike and this is probably the biggest challenge for most artist that I have ever met. What I have learnt from being a musician my whole life is that first the main relationship you need to nurture is between you and your love for the creative process, you need to get that get that right… whatever that means…. then if you are lucky enough to have an audience that is watching you and sometime comments on your work, then this is a relationship that you manage… If you are doing it only for the praise or you are unable to take any critic at all (and ignore the vitriol and the poison of some that thrive on spreading it) or a least filter down to valid critical feedback that is so essential to your growth as an artist… then your longevity will be compromised and eventually it will get the better of you… This is probably the subject of another conversation so I’ll probably stop here before I write an entire dissertation about the subject!  |
3.31
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| This morning I asked my 18-year old son, who created one of the prized artworks I mentioned above ...'What is art ?'He answered 'Something that has physical form that is appealing and makes you feel something'. Gary Lopez Your son nailed with this answer. Everyone has an interpretation of Art. The above quite frankly is Art. I collect Art and most people that visit my house like some and dislike others pieces of my collection So really they is no definitive answer, as everyone has a different view on what is or not Art.It's a great topic, and has endless answers. Bottom line is what a person creates is pleasing to them or your client will be Art in all its form. You take a image of Orion and not one image will be the same, and each person who has submitted there image will call it a form of Art. |
|
19.68
#...
·
|
|---|
Jan Zettergren: I've seen this happen at the gallery that displays my work, Jan. Patrons are attracted to the images of emission nebula without any knowledge of what it is. They tell me that they find it "beautiful" and "dramatic." Sometimes they say that they feel a connection to the image that they can't explain. It seems to move their emotions. When I explain that they are looking at ancient light from a cloud of space gas and dust where stars are born, often a sense of wonder that washes over them. |
|
19.68
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Steeve Body: What has surprised me in the last three years of having my work presented to the audience that visits the gallery is the diversity of opinions and tastes. Sometimes I've hung images that I'm sure are going to be a great appeal, only to have them ignored. While other times an image that does not seem particularly special draws a lot of attention. I've watched husband, wives, brothers, sisters and friends all declare different images are their favorite. As you say, Steeve, when your art is shared it is all beyond your control. All you can hope is that there is someone, at least one, that loves your work. |
|
19.68
#...
·
|
|---|
Bottom line is what a person creates is pleasing to them or your client will be Art in all its form. I completely agree. If it makes you feel something special, it is art for you. |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
Gary Lopez:Jan Zettergren: I can relate to that, and I've experienced the reaction you mentioned, the Wow thing, and the unfortunate follow on effect when the "reality" hits them and they say, Oh how interesting, and loose emotional interest as the rational left brain takes over. I want the viewers... (a question on the side, you use the word Patreon for gallery visitors, I think benefactor reading the word. Can you expand my understanding please) ... to maintain their emotional thoughts. I try storytelling, expanding on the beautiful ancient names and myths behind the dust clouds. But I don't know if that's the way to go. In 1975 I visited Carmel and bought a set of small pewter figurines picturing "Lord of the Ring" characters. The best ever. Lost the artists name but a sweet memory. Still on top of a shelf in the living room. J |
|
19.68
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Jan Zettergren: The gallery that displays my work (Gallery Sur in Carmel) is a commercial gallery and represents five photographers and three sculptors. All the works (images and statues) are for sale so those visiting the gallery are potential patrons. All of the artists represented by gallery are working artist (except me since my main income comes from my foundation) and rely on sales for their livelihood. Gallery Sur has been in operation 25 years so there are thousands of collectors that frequent the collections. |
0.00
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I'm an engineer and scientist by trade but I've always noticed my passion for my work comes from feeling that something creative is going on and is somehow aesthetically pleasing. I've been involved in imaging systems for a long time, modeling them and writing algorithms to process images. Coding, for instance, reminds me of astrophotography in that there are parts that I view as much art as science. Many people think of code as sometimes being elegant and not just functional. Someone once asked me about a deep sky image I created and what it would look like if we could fly through it. We talked about how humans would really be unable to see (unaided) anything that looks like the images I created. I think that the manipulation of all raw sensor data has an aesthetic component to it - the art. In my experience, almost every presentation of data to some audience has an art to it. We are trying to communicate something. To me the scientific part is the attempt to be truthful and properly represent reality, reduce errors and support a claim. The artistic part is evoking a convincing, emotional and swaying response. The boundary is certainly blurry between art and science. But there are so many creative choices being made all along the way, that even the most rigorous science seems to me to have an artistic and creative component. It is nearly impossible to not make some subjective gut judgements in the presentation of data. I believe defining what is art and what is not is a completely human and subjective endeavor. I think the same goes for defining good art vs. bad art. The boundaries are arbitrary and depend on a set of rules and standards that humans develop based on reacting to art. Humans form schools of thought, if you will. For example, counterpoint in music says avoid parallel fifths. If you use parallel fifths (I'm thinking of rock guitar now), you are not making bad art, but bad counterpoint. But you do need a framework for art. I like Frank Zappa's perspective: "The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively-- because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?" I'm not sure if this adds anything to what's already been said, but I think it's a fascinating topic. And I struggle all the time with the boundary with any astronomy image I create. |
5.49
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi James, I enjoyed reading your post - as a computer scientist, I completely agree with your comments about code. There can be a certain 'beauty' to the way code is written - a sort of technical 'poetry' if you like. The same can be said for mathematics if you look at it that way - for example a complex mathematical proof can be 'beautiful' or 'ordinary'. I also agree that the definition of 'art' is very subjective, but I think there are two essential elements - creativity and intent. If a photocopier and a human generate identical images - let's say of a landscape - can it be said that each is a work of 'art' ? I'd argue that the photocopied image is not art, not matter how beautiful it might be, because the photocopier lacks intent. One could also argue that it is not art because the process that generated it lacks creativity - the photocopier is simply executing a process to RE-create the original. Whether or not the original is 'art' is another matter. The same could be said of a flower or a landscape - they are not intrinsically art, although a pictorial representation of them might be. The sound of a bumblebee is neither music nor art, because there is no intent - in contrast to Rimsky-Korsakov's interpretation of it. One also needs to distinguish between a device used as a tool, and a device pretending to be an artist ... in the way that a paintbrush is an artist's tool, and not an artist in itself. A computer might be able to generate a unique image, but that doesn't make computer an artist. The art is in the process of creating the algorithm used by the computer - in this sense, you could say that the programmer is the artist, and therefore the image is art, but the computer is just the paintbrush, not the artist. This line of reasoning begs an interesting question ... If intent is an essential element of art, is it possible to define an object as 'art' without knowing how it was created ? I would argue that it is not. I suggest that the deeper the knowledge of the context and process by which an object was created, the greater the impact of the art - and that only in this sense can art be defined as 'good' or 'bad' - the works of Van Gogh providing excellent examples. My children's first scribbles are 'art' to me because I appreciate their context - to others, they are just scribbles |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Thanks for the reply Gary! Also thanks for creating this group on Astrobin. I agree with intent being important to art. I might also use the word agency - someone who has the ability to make choices and act on those choices. I also think act of art creation relies on a human observer, even if it's only the creator of the art alone. I think all artists take some time to step back and observe their creation and feel it and judge it. So I agree photocopiers and bees don't create art. I think the importance of intent fits with the Frame idea that Frank Zappa mentions in the quote I gave. The context and setting of a creation under which it is viewed is important. So is it possible to make art of photocopies and bee sounds in some circumstances? Aside: I once heard two owls hooting at each other in my backyard one night. I went out there and recorded them with my phone. As I was listening, my brain seemed to lock into the rhythmic pattern and the musical interval between the two different calls. I took the recording and added instruments to the calls, and made a little song. So I don't think the owls were creating art, but I was having a reaction in my brain and sensed something beautiful. I think the art happens when I started fooling around with the sounds and created something. It was triggered by a certain reaction I was having to the sounds. I think you are bringing up great points that are especially relevant in this age of ChatGPT and DALL·E 2. We are all going to be examining what creativity means in this new environment. The courts are going to have to look at it too as they revisit copyright laws. By the way, here is an interesting discussion of copyright law done in comic book form from Duke University Law I think anyone involved with creating should read: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/ Interesting question about the need for knowing intent of the artist. Although I think many people would call something art simply by how it affects them, while having no idea how or why it was created or even who created it. I suppose there just needs to be the possibility that someone, somewhere, could know the intent of the creator and properly judge if the work is art. Another question: what if readers of a novel completely misunderstand the intent of the author, or can't possibly know it? Is it sufficient for an author to be known to be the person who wrote the novel to call it art? Is attribution sufficient to establish artistic intent? I'm just goofing around with all the interesting questions about art that can come up. Obviously I can ramble! It can be a fascinating topic especially to any of us who try to create something we thing is beautiful and/or meaningful. I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. When I mentioned subjectivity, I think I was really reliving all of the never-ending arguments I've had with people about, say, what is good music and what is bad (or painting or writing or film or whatever). But I guess the issue there is rarely "is this art?" but "is this good art?" |
|
5.49
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Jim, Thanks for your quick reply - yes, this is certainly an interesting topic. Unfortunately, I can't take credit for creating this thread - that goes to Gary Lopez - aka 'Gary North' who lives on the northern side of the equator - I am 'Gary South' down here in Australia In relation to your 2 comments ... 1. I think many people would call something art simply by how it affects them, while having no idea how or why it was created or even who created it. Yes - 'art is in the eye of the beholder' as they say. But I think that defining something as art requires more than an emotional response. Going back to my earlier example, a flower is not art, but a painting of one certainly is. The important thing in your comment is the word 'created' - meaning 'to bring something into existence'. It would be reasonable to say that creation in this sense requires intent - otherwise it is just an accident. 2. What if readers of a novel completely misunderstand the intent of the author, or can't possibly know it? Is it sufficient for an author to be known to be the person who wrote the novel to call it art? I would argue that establishing some sort of intent is sufficient to define a thing as art - and that knowing the nature of the intent is not necessary. However, doing so adds to the impact of the art - that is, the depth and breadth of the observer's response to it. For example, 'Starry Night' is an interesting painting, but understanding the torment of Van Gogh's life and the circumstances under which the painting was created add immeasurably to the feeling you get - the emotional response - when you see it. After all, the purpose of art is for the artist to communicate something. Art does not necessarily have to be pleasant, but it does have to be evocative - such as the 'Oh No' moment so powerfully portrayed by Kevin Carter in his Pultzer Prize winning image of 'The Vulture and the Little Girl', as mentioned earlier in this thread. What is 'good' art ? We might need an entirely new thread dedicated to that topic |
|
19.68
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Jim Davis: Thanks for this astute reflection on the nature of art, Jim. I found your thoughts added more new ideas than repeated to what we have discussed the last couple of years. I really enjoyed Frank Zappa's observation. There are a lot of AstroBin contributors like us, with strong technical and science backgrounds. Often efforts to create "art" runs head long into our training as scientists. I've been exploring astrophotography as a new category of fine art photography for a few years now. Most of my work has been focused on narrow band captured emission nebula and the relationship between nature photography (natural history) and abstract art. I have been applying the same sensibilities terrestrial fine art photographers have developed for the last 70 years to create images that have emotional impact. A lot of my time has been spent finding the best way to print and frame to maximize that emotional impact. Have you explored artistic interpretation in your astrophotography? Any breakthroughs or insights? Gary Lopez (Gary [North], not Gary Jones [South]) |
|
5.49
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Gary (North) You make an interesting point about artistic interpretation - I've had that conversation many times with colleagues on this side of the equator Astrophotographers - as opposed to astronomers - walk a fine line between a 'scientific' rendering of an object as opposed to an 'artistic' rendering. There's no arguing that for most of us, astrophotography is an interpretation of the subject. We use specialised equipment to visualise what we cannot see using our own eyes, the result of which is dependant upon any number of personal preferences - colour balance, composition, contrast, palettes, star regeneration and so on. Most APs agree that it's bad practice to introduce data that isn't in the original image - for example to add (or delete) a star - but are OK when it comes to 'tuning' the image to make it more aesthetically pleasing. I think most would agree that an 'un-tuned' image - no matter how expertly captured - is not as interesting as a 'tuned' one - but within certain limits. Enhancing the colour of an object is OK, as is introducing artificial colours - for example by mixing narrow-band images to create a custom palette. But introducing an object - or deleting one - or changing its shape, or its relationship to other objects - is not. The possible exception is the removal of artefacts that are not in the 'actual' image, but introduced as part of our efforts to capture it, such as astigmatism or star spikes caused by support vanes in reflecting telescopes. Introducing star spikes into images where they don't exist in the original data - for artistic effect - generally seems to be considered going too far. I think it's fair to say that AP, whilst based on science, is not an effort to represent something from a scientific perspective. Rather, the goal is to use science to make a personal interpretation of something natural, in a way that has impact and is aesthetically pleasing - as you do so expertly in your images. |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Gary Lopez (North!), Thanks for the reply! I haven't had as much time as I'd like really exploring what can be done with AP and artistic expression and interpretation. I reside in Tucson AZ where my telescope sits. But I've been up in the state of Washington helping to care for my granddaughter since 2020. So I've been using iTelescope to collect image data on remote instruments and then process them myself. Feed the urge. But there are a couple of images I posted here on Astrobin where I stretched the boundaries of traditional AP. One is a wide field image of the Heart and Soul Nebula where I have used different color palettes on each of the nebula. So the Soul is in HOO and the Heart is in SHO, basically giving Heart a green color and Soul a red color. Since palettes and mixes are a matter of (artistic?) choice, I felt I'd push it a bit and use two palettes in one image. Seemed like rule breaking but isn't that sometimes a part of art? Another image I just posted was of SHO imagery of the Large Magellanic Cloud used as the sky for a Sonoran Desert landscape. I took the image of the desert with my iPhone and used images I processed from iTelescope to create the final composite. I was pleased with the look of it and I didn't care that the two images cannot be formed from any single sensor located in one place or even in the same hemisphere. That image is certainly way more on the art scale and not a scientific image when you look at the whole picture. I do think framing and orientation make a big difference in the aesthetics of an AP image. I haven't spent much time on really working on that. But I do have my own personal sensibility to what rotation and cropping does to make the image more impactful, at least to me. I really like what you are doing with color. I feel I'm kind of a rookie when it comes to color in my images. I'm a little slapdash - throw something together. I feel a bit lazy about it. But given my circumstances, it's ok. I'm enjoying working with the data and creating things. Jim |
8.04
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Gary JONES: Bravo,, well said. I totally agree with this, and hope you don't mind I also added this quote to a thread I started on the forum about reducing stars. Carole |
|
5.49
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Carole, Many thanks for your nice compliment Could you post a link to your thread on reducing stars ? That is a fascinating topic in its own right. I'm actually in the middle of a PhD project to render star brightness profiles in 3D, which makes it much easier to identify malformed/saturated/poorly processed stars. Gary (South) |
|
8.04
#...
·
|
|---|
Gary JONES: Hi Gary, this is the link to my thread, unfortunately some-one decided to troll it at the beginning, so it didn't get off to a good start, but I think we have managed to stop him. Also after quoting your comments, a few people seem to think they are my comments. https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/astrophotography/deep-sky-processing-techniques/how-far-is-it-acceptable-to-reduce-stars/ Carole |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thank you for creating the group Gary (Lopez). Great thread. Indeed, for me an eye-opening discussion. To your question about defining art. Art is just one of three simple facets we humans have developed to tell stories. But, of course, the most interesting stories are written in fine art, accompanied by fine wine and good company. Clear Skies GW |
