Poor old Damian Hirst.

[ollypenrice]

19 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

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

The relationship between technical diffiulty and artistic merit is (it really is) a difficult one. The fact that a performance requires technical mastery does not, of itself, make the performance great. But what of a performances which clearly lack technical mastery? Or even moderate technical competence? The skill of the artist is, I think, important. Before seeing their work in the flesh I liked both Paul Klee and Edvard Munch differently but about equally, shall we say. In the flesh Klee was disappointing. His paintngs were not exquisitely crafted. Munch, on the other hand, was breathtaking. Craftsmanship. Technical mastery. Yup, they do matter.

Sour grapes? Not at all from me. My only entry in an astrophoto comp was last year as a collaborator, so far as I can remember.

Olly

[Alien 13]

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

The relationship between technical diffiulty and artistic merit is (it really is) a difficult one. The fact that a performance requires technical mastery does not, of itself, make the performance great. But what of a performances which clearly lack technical mastery? Or even moderate technical competence? The skill of the artist is, I think, important. Before seeing their work in the flesh I liked both Paul Klee and Edvard Munch differently but about equally, shall we say. In the flesh Klee was disappointing. His paintngs were not exquisitely crafted. Munch, on the other hand, was breathtaking. Craftsmanship. Technical mastery. Yup, they do matter.

Sour grapes? Not at all from me. My only entry in an astrophoto comp was last year as a collaborator, so far as I can remember.

Olly

I think you summed it up perfectly, technical competence does not an artist make but it might help. 

Alan

P.S. I am a Turner fan not as accurate as some but.....

[iapa]

2 hours ago, ChrisLX200 said:

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

+1 for the comp

[RichLD]

It's probably worth throwing something else into the mix here - a degree of technical ability gives the artist, whichever creative area they work in, the ability to be consistent and to create a body of work with a recognisable style or styles. If we flip this idea and have an individual who does not have the technical ability to know why and how they created a great piece of work and therefore cannot produce any more output of note (sort of like a "one hit wonder") would we consider them to be a great artist?

It wouldn't change the fact that the single piece they produced (fluked?) was great in itself, but we might not respect them as much as someone who has proved themselves by creating great work time after time...

Inspiration, imagination, originality and passion are all very important, possibly fundamental in creating great art. However, I believe that learning the basics of any craft then going on to develop excellent technique is, alongside these qualities, fundamental in making a great artist. Probably 

[ChrisLX200]

I doubt there are any 'great artists' we can think of as such who ever thought they themselves were a great artist. It's a label placed on them by others.

Personally I had no horse in this race and certainly no sour grapes, but for me there is a challenge in producing the best image (to my own eye) that I can. I've yet to produce one I can say I'm truely happy with but I like to think they are (slowly) improving with time and experience. If there were no challenge - if capturing images became routine, then there would be no reward and I would look elsewhere for something to occupy my time. In visual astronomy we struggle to find obscure and often dim objects with no more reward than the satisfaction of being able to say we saw them - how can you explain that to someone who is not an amateur astronomer?

ChrisH

[ollypenrice]

My parents used to lament that art schools had moved away from teaching students skills and now tried to teach them to be artists. For them, and for me, you first learned a set of skills skill and then you learned how to create art with those skills. One of the great things about music is that it resists this foolishness. Nobody imagines that you can make music without learing to play the instrument. (Well, somebody will but nobody will listen to them and they don't get into music school!)

Olly

[RichLD]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

My parents used to lament that art schools had moved away from teaching students skills and now tried to teach them to be artists. For them, and for me, you first learned a set of skills skill and then you learned how to create art with those skills. One of the great things about music is that it resists this foolishness. Nobody imagines that you can make music without learing to play the instrument. (Well, somebody will but nobody will listen to them and they don't get into music school!)

Olly

This is a very good point that is also valid in the world of popular music, not just in the grade driven world of classically trained musicians. In my previous life as a professional rock musician, I recorded and toured (as support act ) with many successful and well known people in the genre, as well as some that had been signed to major record labels but had yet to achieve any form of recognition or commercial success. One thing that they all had in common (apart from having the requisite huge rock star ego ) was a solid commitment to perfecting their technique or "chops", the main reason being that they could confidently walk onto a stage every night and deliver consistent results to a paying audience - rock fans in particular can smell a bluffer from a mile away and have very high expectations.

It may have been their shtick to come across as elegantly wasted, couldn't care less rock 'n' rollers, giving the impression that they considered practising your instrument and rehearsing heavily for your live show was for the losers out there, however behind the scenes...

I particularly like this quote from Russian artist Sergei Bongart:

“Learn technique; have full command to the extent of not being conscious of how it is done. When craftsmanship has been developed, you are free to create - technique will give way to expression!”

Says it all for me!

Cheers

Rich 

 

 

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, RichLD said:

 

I particularly like this quote from Russian artist Sergei Bongart:

“Learn technique; have full command to the extent of not being conscious of how it is done. When craftsmanship has been developed, you are free to create - technique will give way to expression!”

Says it all for me!

Cheers

Rich 

 

 

Totally true.

Coming back to astrophotography, I don't think it is predominantly art. It's craftsmanship. The art was done by nature out there in space.

Olly

[Singlin]

I take Astro photos in the belief  that i am capturing a part of our universe that would not be visible to me otherwise.

My data on my camera chip is not falsified and I try and keep it that way when processing.

Astronomy is a Science it is not Art.

Astro photography is us trying to capture the science on our desktops or printed on paper.

Some error will occur when trying to process data as we are not sure what the object looks like.

I believe a competition should stay within these guidelines and not venture too far in one direction or the other.

The result of a competition like this is a reference point for the general public and us on what we can achieve in acquiring such data with our telescope and cameras.

Lets keep it that way otherwise it will no longer have any value to people like me.

[Dave Lloyd]

On 17/09/2016 at 09:20, ollypenrice said:

My parents used to lament that art schools had moved away from teaching students skills and now tried to teach them to be artists. For them, and for me, you first learned a set of skills skill and then you learned how to create art with those skills. One of the great things about music is that it resists this foolishness. Nobody imagines that you can make music without learing to play the instrument. (Well, somebody will but nobody will listen to them and they don't get into music school!)

Olly

This started quite a debate in our family and most of us fervently agreed. Our experience of most art teachers was that they seemed to be pushing their own agendas based on very narrow self interest. I remember from my days in school when a teacher told me I didn't need to be told how to do but just let it "flow" (summer of love). Thirty years later my son was told to make a wooden spiral and ascribe an artistic meaning to it. He said there is no meaning, you told me to make it. This was also the teacher who told her class " I hate it here, I'll be off to do something better soon". Truly inspirational.

[ollypenrice]

3 minutes ago, Dave Lloyd said:

This started quite a debate in our family and most of us fervently agreed. Our experience of most art teachers was that they seemed to be pushing their own agendas based on very narrow self interest. I remember from my days in school when a teacher told me I didn't need to be told how to do but just let it "flow" (summer of love). Thirty years later my son was told to make a wooden spiral and ascribe an artistic meaning to it. He said there is no meaning, you told me to make it. This was also the teacher who told her class " I hate it here, I'll be off to do something better soon". Truly inspirational.

Yup. When I was a sixth former my girl friend was doing A level art and told us that her teacher had said, 'You can't teach people how to draw. They can either do it or they can't.' My mother just replied, 'SHE can't teach people to draw but I'll teach you.'

Olly

[BGazing]

The whole modern art hoopla reminds me of a (probably) apocryphal story about Khruschev's visit to the USA. When shown a sculpture of Henry Moore and being told that the sculpture is called "The Woman", he remarked that he would marry the sculptor to such a woman.

Similarly, those who had given the first prize in this competition should have the winning picture glued to their lens cell/corrector plate...for at least a year.

[JamesF]

For me, the image isn't art.  It just doesn't engage me on any level.  I don't even dislike it.  Obviously there are people out there for whom that is not the case.

James

[ollypenrice]

4 hours ago, JamesF said:

For me, the image isn't art.  It just doesn't engage me on any level.  I don't even dislike it.  Obviously there are people out there for whom that is not the case.

James

That is utterly damning and describes my position perfectly. I have no argument with the picture because it could hardly be easier to ignore. My argument is with it's winning what was, until this judgement, a major astrophotography competition.

Olly

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I quite like the winning image, but it's the kind of thing that arguably merits a special mention rather than an actual prize. It's a nice demonstration of an atmospheric phenomena, Sirius just provides a handy point source low in the sky. They aren't really colours of Sirius, they are an artifact caused by scintillation and the exposure time of the camera. The browns are just dull orange, I suspect a shorter exposure has been used when the atmosphere has served up a mix of red and yellow. The human eye would never see some of those colours as it works differently. The technique used is a cul-de-sac, if the photographer submits a Colours of Procyon next years they will have indeed moved into the world of Pop Art.

Kudos to the photographer for the idea and execution but the judges have dropped the ball on this one. Don't suppose there are any contact details for the organisers?

[sooot]

My entry next year is going to be a mars bar and the sun news paper

[JamesF]

25 minutes ago, sooot said:

My entry next year is going to be a mars bar and the sun news paper

Add a couple of Galaxy wrappers in the background...

James

[Knight of Clear Skies]

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

And the winner is...

Brilliant.

Olly

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I have a better suggestion for next year:

"Erased Starfield by Penrice" (The Ha signal was remarkably stubborn.)

To re-iterate, I like The Colours of Sirius image but it's the first award-winning astrophotograph to be less impressive than looking at the subject with the naked eye. I once mistook a scintillating star for an airplane because the flashes of red were so vivid.

[SilverAstro]

I like how the MilkyWay is a bright band and Mars is floating in a dark sky,

did you realise that you had caught a comet,  will it get brighter this autumn, has it been round the Sun yet, is it an Independent discovery and have you sent an eMail to the MPC ? Or is it an Eisenstein Ring

[ollypenrice]

Here's mine for next year:

                                              WAITING FOR SIRIUS

Olly

[SilverAstro]

53 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Here's mine for next year:

                                              WAITING FOR SIRIUS

Olly

Hmmm, I think you've  been into the Photoshop, I havnt seen a sky that colour for a long time now, or praps it is the absinthe again, gather it's a bit of a hazard for artists down your way ?!

[BGazing]

i am laughing so hard that my cat has taken shelter in another room...

[SilverAstro]

I feel sorry for the bloke wot done it. There he was all pleased as punch at winning, his pic in lights, logs in to his fav astro forum and Bump! The pic is fine, interesting an'all just that , , ,

Now I can see some cat jokes in the offing :

Good job it wasnt in Black or White, we wouldnt know which till we looked in the painting, ,