Poor old Damian Hirst.

[RichLD]

4 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

There's a difference between art and pretentiousness. They don't have to be bedfellows!

Well said that man! 

[ChrisLX200]

Just now, ollypenrice said:

There's a difference between art and pretentiousness. They don't have to be bedfellows!

Agreed, but art is a personal experience and it is how it affects you personally that will make you appreciate it - or not. I don't need/like experts telling me something is [apparently] excellent as if their opinion is superior to everyone elses', and if you can't see their choice has merits then somehow it is YOU that is missing something.

ChrisH

[ollypenrice]

7 minutes ago, ChrisLX200 said:

Agreed, but art is a personal experience and it is how it affects you personally that will make you appreciate it - or not. I don't need/like experts telling me something is [apparently] excellent as if their opinion is superior to everyone elses', and if you can't see their choice has merits then somehow it is YOU that is missing something.

ChrisH

A really expert critic would never do that, only a bad one. I used to find Velasquez a dull courtly painter until I discovered Smirnoff Helen, an art history student who sat me down in front of some of his works and talked me through what was really happening in them. Aha, what a difference! They turned into thrillers with long and complicated plots... When I taught Lit criticism I always said to students that if studying books didn't enhance their enjoyment of them then they should change courses. Proper criticism isn't about value judgements, it's about understanding. That includes learning that, in bad art, there is nothing to understand!!!

lly

[RichLD]

3 minutes ago, ChrisLX200 said:

Agreed, but art is a personal experience and it is how it affects you personally that will make you appreciate it - or not. I don't need/like experts telling me something is [apparently] excellent as if their opinion is superior to everyone elses', and if you can't see their choice has merits then somehow it is YOU that is missing something.

ChrisH

I always struggle with the concept of being advised by "experts" on how to appreciate the arts, particularly some of the more esoteric areas. When I worked in music retail our classical buyer went on a jazz appreciation course, as he had inherited that particular sub department. Whilst I admired his commitment to his job, I had to wonder how do you learn to truly appreciate a musical form such as jazz? "Here comes a mixolydian phrase modulated by a lydian scale" etc etc. Niiiice  Surely it's something you just get...

I think it can help to understand a little about the personalities behind the art and also to glean knowledge of the techniques involved, but I don't believe you can be told how to truly appreciate anything as subjective or complex as art by an "expert" or critic. After all, it's only one person's opinion...

 

[ollypenrice]

Like you, I don't think you can be 'told how to' appreciate an art form and disappearing into technical critical terms is a hopeless way to help someone towards enjoyment. But I spent my first working life of 23 years teaching literature, drama and film and you can certainly help students to find more to interest them and more to enjoy in a work of art by helping them towards a more complex understanding. You begin by helping them to see or hear more. Some examples: poets don't just use words for their literal and implicit meanings but for their sounds. Many people don't hear this straight off but, given a nudge, they can learn to listen to words where previously they only read them. Vowel-n or vowel-m often sound metallic. In a poem about a farrier Hopkins piles up these metallic sounds to recreate the din of hammer on iron in the forge. Some hear it for themselves straight away. Others need a pointer.

Some will see double meanings straight away, others not.

'You will start out standing, proud to steal her anything she sees,

but you will wind up peeking through a keyhole down upon your knees.'

But that can also be 

'You will start outstanding, proud to steal her anything she sees...'

The line has more to say when you hear both at once.

Olly

[Pippy]

6 hours ago, Steve Ward said:

One difference is that Master Hirst has a following

"Followings" give me the 'creeps' as it were - towards both sides (the followers and the followed)

Not the most descriptive of descriptions I know, and very un-pc like I know

[RichM63]

Like a 'plonker' I clicked on the winning image and then waited 10 minutes for an 'astro-image' to appear, not realizing that the 'Connect-4' game shot was the image!

[Skipper Billy]

On the upside it looks like my 4 year old grandson is in with a chance of winning next year if that's the standard we are aspiring to for a winning image!

[RichLD]

I've just realised 

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Like you, I don't think you can be 'told how to' appreciate an art form and disappearing into technical critical terms is a hopeless way to help someone towards enjoyment. But I spent my first working life of 23 years teaching literature, drama and film and you can certainly help students to find more to interest them and more to enjoy in a work of art by helping them towards a more complex understanding. You begin by helping them to see or hear more. Some examples: poets don't just use words for their literal and implicit meanings but for their sounds. Many people don't hear this straight off but, given a nudge, they can learn to listen to words where previously they only read them. Vowel-n or vowel-m often sound metallic. In a poem about a farrier Hopkins piles up these metallic sounds to recreate the din of hammer on iron in the forge. Some hear it for themselves straight away. Others need a pointer.

Some will see double meanings straight away, others not.

'You will start out standing, proud to steal her anything she sees,

but you will wind up peeking through a keyhole down upon your knees.'

But that can also be 

'You will start outstanding, proud to steal her anything she sees...'

The line has more to say when you hear both at once.

Olly

Couldn't agree more sir, bang on the money - I really like the example you've used to illustrate your point.

Tell you what though, I can't believe I've gone "on one"  and have totally forgotten to congratulate Tom on his superb effort so:

Nice one Tom, now that's a work of art! 

All the best

Rich 

[ollypenrice]

The second placed image is also absolutely stunning. If you know AP you know how hard it is to do that kind of target justice.

Damn, I really need to work on my Sirius technique this winter, though. I had entirely understimated its unlimited possibilities for creating great astrophotos.

Olly

[Alien 13]

I cant understand the negative reaction surely most amateur images have little or no scientific value but are in fact artistic impressions, this winner is doing nothing more than people do in post processing when altering star shapes etc.

Alan

[ChrisLX200]

Discussion on Fine Art aside, not many amateur astronomers come onto forums such as this one seeking tips on how to produce images similar to the winner. Also like many others on this forum, in knowing the difficulties I'm in a position to appreciate the sheer hard work and skill (and yes, artistry if you like) that went into creating many of the other beautiful images on display like those of Tom, Damian, Pavel and so many others. Those images show features we recognise as being difficult to capture - teasing out faint detail of interstellar clouds, subtle reflection nebulae which would otherwise be lost in the noise, pin-point and colourfull stars, and delicate colour balancing. So this is not so much a negative reaction to the winning choice which exhibts lovely star colours, but I would like to have seen one of those others rewarded with the highest accolade. Alas, abstract art won the day. Never mind, I'll just continue trying to capture and express my own view of this wonderful universe  

Perhaps we should start our own annual competition called the SGL Image of the Year - selected by popular vote?

ChrisH

[ollypenrice]

4 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

I cant understand the negative reaction surely most amateur images have little or no scientific value but are in fact artistic impressions, this winner is doing nothing more than people do in post processing when altering star shapes etc.

Alan

Well I hope I can respond to that in a way which is both friendly and yet in total disagreement! 

1) Science and art are not poles of one axis, nor, if they were, would they define the only axis on which to consider astrophotography. The art-science axis is entirely spurious in AP. I just don't recognize it.

2) This image is not art, or not successful art. It is, I'm sorry, a very poor attempt at what it does. Do you see those muddy colours in Sirius? I never have. Have they been colour calibrated? How? Against what?

3) Are carefully calibrated, flat fielded, multiply sampled deep sky images checked against recorded astrophisical spectral class data 'artistic impressions?' Ouch! That hurts. I often think, 'I really hope that star in the bottom left is a blue supergiant. It would great if it were.' But if it ain't it ain't.

4) Amateur deep sky imagers are not doing science, they are doing something else. 'Oh, it must be art then!' No. 'And if it's art then they can do what they like!' No. So what is it?

How about craftsmanship? Let's consider two chair making craftsmen.

A) Yeah right, listen right, I got this great idea for a chair right, like one leg is really boring, right, we done that, we seen that so I want one leg but they've done that, right, in the middle right, but on mine it goes in one corner, yeah? And its great cos when you sit on it the one leg lets go of the seat and goes straight up yer arts council, right. Fantasitc. Get on the telly wiv that for sure.

B ) http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://tomprovost.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Chair%202.72.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tomprovost.co.uk/shop/seating/handmade-wooden-chair/&h=755&w=800&tbnid=-B5e2OlEaBwmnM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=95&docid=3D1VsG8eWJC_AM&usg=__QENZ4ZH6G0-T78raWW4pLR87E-w=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg6IHex5TPAhWDDcAKHUVDDxQQ9QEIJDAC

Olly

[Gasman]

Hi guys

Have to say I think the judges choice has achieved exactly what  they set out to do, get people discussing, criticising,condemning and praising  an image.

We as astronomers  may look at that image and assume its nothing whatsoever to do with astronomy but maybe looking at it from an arty  perspective might conclude that it does indeed represent the cosmos albeit in a more structured context than it really is.  Who would have thought years ago that a piece of rock for instance when you break it down to the atomic level is composed of atoms , electrons etc in chains/lattice configurations not a million miles dissimilar from the  winning image.

Have to say though purely on a personal basis when I look at a landscape I do prefer a Constable to some of the modern stuff so I can see where Ollie is coming from. Beauty is in the eye etc......

Steve

[Davey-T]

Nice chair but is it art , is that the longest link I've ever seen ? 

Dave

[Alien 13]

I agree with you Olly in that most of us are "crafting"images using a combination of scientific data and an eye for composition but there are good well executed images and the wow ones that have something else.

Alan

[Dave Lloyd]

I think you are all being mean. I'm sure if Master Hirst put his mind to it he could arrange M & Ms better than anyone. So there.

[RichLD]

I'm going to stick my neck out here - perhaps the criticism of the winning entry is somewhat based on how much effort the naysayers believe was put into it? Do we secretly get a bit riled if we believe someone has thrown something together without much thought,  gaining more recognition than the other entries which appear to have far more in the way of substance? Even worse if we suspect that the winner "lucked out" then retrospectively made up a complex rationale for their work...

As has been said before in this thread, it certainly gets people talking, which in it's own way has to be a good thing 

I also think that it is very easy for negative critique to be interpreted as mean spirited but I really don't believe that any of the good people on SGL are like that, which is precisely why I love it here so much! Anyway, if you're going to put yourself out there and win a prestigious award, it can be very tough at the top and you have to be a little thick skinned. I'm sure winner can take it 

Anyway, despite all that, I still don't think the winning entry is very good at all,  just my opinion of course...

 

[Alien 13]

1 minute ago, RichLD said:

I'm going to stick my neck out here - perhaps the criticism of the winning entry is somewhat based on how much effort the naysayers believe was put into it? Do we secretly get a bit riled if we believe someone has thrown something together without much thought,  gaining more recognition than the other entries which appear to have far more in the way of substance? Even worse if we suspect that the winner "lucked out" then retrospectively made up a complex rationale for their work...

As has been said before in this thread, it certainly gets people talking, which in it's own way has to be a good thing 

I also think that it is very easy for negative critique to be interpreted as mean spirited but I really don't believe that any of the good people on SGL are like that, which is precisely why I love it here so much! Anyway, if you're going to put yourself out there and win a prestigious award, it can be very tough at the top and you have to be a little thick skinned. I'm sure winner can take it 

Anyway, despite all that, I still don't think the winning entry is very good at all,  just my opinion of course...

 

Its sometimes hard to quantify what makes a great image it is certainly nothing to do with the number of hours spent capturing it, there have been many images on SGL that have taken months to produce that are outstanding but equally there are some taken in a few minutes as good if not better.

Alan 

[ChrisLX200]

Just now, Alien 13 said:

Its sometimes hard to quantify what makes a great image it is certainly nothing to do with the number of hours spent capturing it, there have been many images on SGL that have taken months to produce that are outstanding but equally there are some taken in a few minutes as good if not better.

Alan 

I'm sorry but no - I have to disagree there. There may not be a linear relationship between exposure time and quality of result but we (experienced astro-imagers) know a difficult target/subject when we see one - and one that has been handled masterfully, we can also recognise the skill that went into the personal interpretation of the final image (give the raw data to several imagers and each will produce a different result). I suspect that not all of the judges would similarly recognise those image attributes (technical difficulty and processing skill) and in fact the remainder have an artistic background which has no relationship to astronomy at all. So those images with attributes which attract admiration from mainly astro-imagers only get (half?) the votes, whereas the winners need to get votes from both artists and astro-imagers. You see where I'm coming from? It then becomes more to do with the composition of the selection panel than it is to do with the subject matter. If the competition itself were titled anything other than 'Astrophotographer of the Year' I would have no problem with this, but the fact that it is pushed forward as the pinnacle of astrophotography - something to which we would/should all aspire, then it really grates.

ChrisH

[Scooot]

I wonder if it would have won if I'd submitted it?

[ollypenrice]

While I agree with the thrust of Chris's point I still cannot believe, as a person from an arts background, that there is any significant artistic merit in the multiple Sirius. The fact that it isn't science and isn't astrophotography and isn't craftsmanship doesn't make it art!  With any work of art a good question to ask yourself is not, 'How long did it take to make?' but 'For how long is it worth looking at?' Now what is that collection of muddy Siirus dots going to give you after two minutes? Five minutes? Come now, could you really stick it for five minutes? You'd need Vallium.  But the second and third place images are images that you can sit back and live in, dream in, savour, relish, allow to transport you. Pour yourelf a single malt. Close your eyes. Look again.

Olly

[ollypenrice]

12 minutes ago, Scooot said:

I wonder if it would have won if I'd submitted it?

This has been mentioned. I have no opinion.

[Alien 13]

33 minutes ago, ChrisLX200 said:

 I suspect that not all of the judges would similarly recognise those image attributes (technical difficulty and processing skill) and in fact the remainder have an artistic background which has no relationship to astronomy at all.

I always thought that the the earth was a planet and an important one at that, I do think there are a lot of sour grapes from imagers who in all honesty are not even remotely amateurs.

As far as technical difficulty goes what has that got to do with anything, if you want a better image there are plenty on the web.

Alan

[Gasman]

Must admit I didn`t read what the winning photographer had to say about his submission initially and thought they were just a collection of coloured dots created by him, I`ve just revisited the site and now realise that they are actual images of Sirius taken over time and displayed in a matrix setting so apart from Steve rearranging the images it could be argued that it is an actual astronomical image (or images) and whether we like it or not is irrelevant its what the imager wanted to portray and good luck to him! I would submit Its just different to what most of us would expect!

Steve