Poor old Damian Hirst.

[ollypenrice]

56 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

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 ?!

No, it's a while since the sky has been as bad as that....  Actually the pic (of Mont Ventoux) was taken shortly after Monique and I were married and my collaborator/pal/benefactor Yves Van den Broek treated us to a super restaurant from whose terrace it was taken. I've never tasted Absinthe. Probably just as well...

50 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

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, ,

 

 

Yes, and I feel a bit guilty about this as well. The trouble is that I spend my working life amongst dedicated craftsmen and women constantly pushing to resolve harder photographic problems and produce new sights in astrophotos. They do this by improving their astrophotos, not by coming up with a new gimmick for this apparently gimmick-loving competition. They come back here each year having studied, experimented, thought, worked  at tiny refinements of their craft so that, each year, their work will be deeper, finer and more beautiful than last year. My loyalty is with them. 

Olly

[johnfosteruk]

On 18 September 2016 at 15:50, 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

 

On 18 September 2016 at 20:20, ollypenrice said:

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

My sentiments exactly James and Olly. It was the work produced by the folks like those on this forum, who historically would win competitions like this and appear in a footnote in the news, as well as the amazing work produced by the HST amongst other things that interested me in astronomy for years, casually at first and then when the opportunity arose to actually get some gear and start going out observing/imaging (I will, I will, I will have the gear for deep sky imaging one day soon) 

I'm sure my story is the same as many others in the hobby, the colouring/processing of the DSO images is not the actual view, but that's the point, it represents something. I always thought that the aim of IAPY was to celebrate the craft of using the skills to tell the story of the object, to represent the elements, the structure of what you're seeing and so on. It is definitely not art, it is a window into the universe.

A defocussed star is a defocussed star, as somebody else said I can see that on my iPhone.

Having produced some solar and lunar imaging lately those sections interested me as well and the Highly Commended entry in Lunar, is to my mind not in the right contest. It's a great photo, I like it, it would do well in a National Geographic contest I feel, but it doesn't fit with what I always believed the IAPY is all about.

The analogy doesn't quite fit but I'm sure you'll get the point, don't enter a story from the kids 500 Words contest for the Booker prize. It may be a great story and fit for the standard of the kids contest but it isn't fine literature fiction. If your 10-15 year old sprog/prodigy is knocking out Booker quality work then nominate it for the Booker but otherwise leave it where it belongs, let the kids contest inspire a passion to learn the skills as Olly said and grow up to win the Booker.

Not saying that chap's Sirius photo is kids work, like I said the analogy doesn't quite fit in that respect but you get the point. I think this whole thing is representative of the current hunger for fame and popularity, the growing desire to make things convenient and reduce the amount of effort required. I find it most distasteful frankly.

Nuff said.

[Alien 13]

Sad I guess most of you dont like Turner or van Gogh either.

Alan

[ChrisLX200]

Just now, Alien 13 said:

Sad I guess most of you dont like Turner or van Gogh either.

Alan

I wouldn't like it if either won Astrophotographer of the Year no, but they are in with a chance apparently...

ChrisH

[JamesF]

Actually, a Turner interpretation of, say, something like the Eagle Nebula could be an amazing thing to see.  The interplay of dark and light might suit him down to a tee.  The idea intrigues me

Van Gogh has of course already done astroimaging

 

James

[JamesF]

Actually, here's another of Van Gogh's that I didn't previously know.  Unlike Venus in the previous picture, which you really have to know is there to identify, this one contains an obviously identifiable group of stars.  I actually prefer this one to Starry Night.  I think it's almost heart-stoppingly beautiful...

 

James

[ollypenrice]

10 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

Sad I guess most of you dont like Turner or van Gogh either.

Alan

Don't we? I adore them both.

Olly

[ollypenrice]

9 hours ago, JamesF said:

Actually, here's another of Van Gogh's that I didn't previously know.  Unlike Venus in the previous picture, which you really have to know is there to identify, this one contains an obviously identifiable group of stars.  I actually prefer this one to Starry Night.  I think it's almost heart-stoppingly beautiful...

 

James

As you say, heartstoppingly beautiful. I wonder about the couple in the foreground. They have their backs to the stars...

Olly

[Tom OD]

9 hours ago, JamesF said:

Actually, a Turner interpretation of, say, something like the Eagle Nebula could be an amazing thing to see.  The interplay of dark and light might suit him down to a tee.  The idea intrigues me

Van Gogh has of course already done astroimaging

 

James

And Van Gogh already has an APOD  from 2 days ago.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160918.html

 

[BGazing]

Van Gogh painted in Pickering 1 exclusively.

[Macavity]

If anyone is interested, there's quite a good ART series on BBC4 at the moment:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07w6gkt/whos-afraid-of-conceptual-art
This (and others) helped pass the hours while the "white cloud" scudded by...
Aside: I also learned to beware (more than usual) of things bought in TINs?

If I am to throw in a random remark, from a position of zero specific experience.
Maybe they should split the category into STARS or NEBULAE (separately)! If
I am to really push the boat out, Astro images can have considerable Aesthetic
appeal. But, for me, *scientific* information is presented in e.g. histograms.
(Maybe that reflects my lack of ability to think in more then two dimensions!)

P.S. I wryly remark that I've had to read a LOT of this thread to get the gist...
Much more than the one about "Public Space Protection Orders". [teasing]

[Skipper Billy]

Van Gogh would probably have  been a very good astro-imager - he was mentally ill and used to being  penniless - prime requisites !

[swamp thing]

On 17 September 2016 at 12:11, ollypenrice said:

 

Coming back to astrophotography, It's craftsmanship.

 

In the same way art to you is only the prerequisite of the old masters. Craft to me is reserved for people that actually have real skill with their hands.  

Regards 

 

[ollypenrice]

On 20/09/2016 at 00:11, JamesF said:

8 hours ago, swamp thing said:

 

In the same way art to you is only the prerequisite of the old masters. 

Regards 

 

No, I like good modern artists as well. I just don't like conceptuall art. I don't believe in art without craftsmanship.

8 hours ago, swamp thing said:

 

 Craft to me is reserved for people that actually have real skill with their hands.  

Regards 

 

 So no tools allowed, then? That leaves potters, basket weavers and cave painters.

Once you introduce tools, like Photoshop, it becomes a less than black and white issue, no? When we have invented digital imaging and digital processing tools we have invented new raw materials and new tools. What then follows is the process of transforming raw materials into a finished product and, for me, that's a pretty good definition of craftsmanship. It's not craftsmanship in precisely the old sense but I still think it's the best word we have. I also think it describes very accurately the business of doing astrophotography and offers a vital alternative to the unhelpful terms 'art' and 'science.'

Olly

[swamp thing]

9 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

No, I like good modern artists as well. I just don't like conceptuall art. I don't believe in art without craftsmanship.

 So no tools allowed, then? That leaves potters, basket weavers and cave painters.

Once you introduce tools, like Photoshop, it becomes a less than black and white issue, no? When we have invented digital imaging and digital processing tools we have invented new raw materials and new tools. What then follows is the process of transforming raw materials into a finished product and, for me, that's a pretty good definition of craftsmanship. It's not craftsmanship in precisely the old sense but I still think it's the best word we have. I also think it describes very accurately the business of doing astrophotography and offers a vital alternative to the unhelpful terms 'art' and 'science.'

Olly

Photoshop is a computer program not a tool. I know, I use it myself   Tools have substance and...........well, they actually exist. Photoshop is just a computer program ( a darn good one but just a program). 

However I don't want to argue about it. So as long as you don't start calling yourselves "craftsmen" I guess I'll leave it.........  

Regards 

[ollypenrice]

20 hours ago, swamp thing said:

Photoshop is a computer program not a tool. I know, I use it myself   Tools have substance and...........well, they actually exist. Photoshop is just a computer program ( a darn good one but just a program). 

However I don't want to argue about it. So as long as you don't start calling yourselves "craftsmen" I guess I'll leave it.........  

Regards 

Here's an online dictionary definition of 'tool.'  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tool

You'll see that definitions 3, 4 and 8 all describe Photoshop. Definition 8 says, Computers, a utility programme. In the English language Photoshop is, plain and simple, a collection of tools. They may not be tools in the sense that you like to use the word, which is fair enough. Personally I like Ps and I like all my workshop tools as well. Maybe they should have a different name but language is massivlely metaphorical and in English they do share a name.

Regarding traditional craftsmanship, though, don't you think that a lot of what makes a good craftsman comes not just from the hands but from the eye and the brain? I remember feeling outraged by the way the snobbish mother of a school friend talked about people who 'worked with their hands.' So a joiner designing and building a turning staircase is working with his hands? What about the calculations? I felt like asking her if she know how to calculate the dimensions of complex staircase. She couldn't calculate how long it took to take a five minute walk.

Olly

 

[swamp thing]

In reference to your dictionary link I will take the same stance as you have done before on surface brightness of extended objects seen through the eyepiece. 

I dont care what they say. I believe differently  

Fiddling about on Ps will never be a craft to me. It is great fun but not craft.

Of course the brain is involved in any craft. It would be impossible to do any craft without it  Blind craftsmen may argue about the eye reference though.  

Regards 

[ollypenrice]

I'm open to persuasion on surface brightness and have thought again about it, and observed again, following our earlier conversations. I take your point on that matter. The arguments are all on your side and I will be the first to concede if I'm wrong. I may well be. For ages, now, I've wanted to compare the 20 inch with the TEC140 at the same power, which I can very nearly do. It's just that, most of the time, the TEC is tied up with imaging. I'll get to it, though. I respect theory but always want to put it to the test. It's an intersting issue and has been on my mind since that original thread. But back to the thread:

If you 'fiddle about' with a chisel you are not a craftsman. If you 'fiddle about' with Photoshop you are not a craftsman. If you think that the only thing you can do in Photoshop is 'fiddle about' you are mistaken. You need to understand any tool and use it in a controlled way. I began by fiddling about in Photoshop, for sure, but then I decided to look into it properly and think about it a bit more carefully. I have spent ten years doing this. Be absolutely clear, I never fiddle about in Photoshop any more. I experiment but I experiment in the way that any knowledgeable user of a tool experiments. I know what it does and, more or less, how it does it. (Regarding 'More or less,' how much does a cabinet maker know about blade metallurgy? Something, certainly, but not as much as a metallurgist.)

I'm going to say that I consider this an exquisitely crafted image. (It isn't mine so I'm impartial.) This image was not crafted by 'fiddling about' in Photoshop or anywhere else. No fiddling about was involved in stitching this vast mosaic together, balancing the colours and illumination, dealing with field curvature. If it wasn't done by 'fiddling about' how would you say that it was done? What word would you use to distinguish between a person who could not do it and the person who could and did do it?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120828.html

Olly

 

 

 

 

[Tom OD]

Olly has said it above in his post, and used an excellent picture as an example ?, but to back it up, I firmly believe Photoshop is a tool. I certainly do not Fiddle About with it when it comes to making my images. It took years to develop the skills and subtlety needed for my tastes when I process. 

While the touch and sensitivity of a physical tool is not there in hand, it is to me present in the eye. Just as important in the creation of something good. ( I m not going to say art or science) 

Tom. 

[ChrisLX200]

I like to 'craft' things with my hands too, it's called 'Model Engineering' and involves machining metal on my lathe and milling machine, together with all sorts of hand tools like files, saws, taps and dies, and so on. I could also achieve the same ends using CNC machines - programming my design and then letting the machine get on with cutting it - CNC machines are still tools and my interface with them would purely be via a program on a computer. It is a poor choice of differentiation.

ChrisH

[Stub Mandrel]

Along time ago, I came to the conclusion that MY definition of art is something which is intended to have an emotional effect on the viewer - in other words having a quality beyond simple representation.

I can see the art in Warhol's soup cans as much as Rembrandt's self portraits. I am quite comfortable with abstract art; I recognise the incredible skill of Picasso as someone who could express a whole body with a few beautiful lines as still present in his most abstract works.

The older I get the more I appreciate music that breaks the rules of musicality - Soft Machine would be an example.

The Sirius dots, don't work for me, because they aren't telling me anything about Sirius, the artist or anything much.

I thought the one with streaky green and red rings was far weaker. Even if it contained useful information, it was no more than claiming an oscilloscope trace of an opera singer's voice is art...

In contrast, I think the eclipse sequence is brilliant, scientifically and aesthetically.

 

[JamesF]

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Along time ago, I came to the conclusion that MY definition of art is something which is intended to have an emotional effect on the viewer - in other words having a quality beyond simple representation.

My view is broadly similar.  I think art is about creating a relationship between the viewer (or listener) and the work.  I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be an emotional response.  It might be physical or intellectual, but perhaps the distinction between the three might often be hard to make anyhow.

Of course that means what is art for some people may not be for others.  I don't have a problem with that.  By the side of the M5 just north of here is a willow sculpture of a giant.  I love seeing it every time I pass it and I'd never grow tired of it.  I bet there are some who barely even notice it.  For them perhaps it isn't art.  For me it certainly is.

James

[JamesF]

Here's the willow sculpture for those who don't pass down this way.  It fascinates me.  I think it would actually be wonderful to see more of this sort of thing "exhibited" beside motorways and major roads.  Perhaps that's a corollary of my definition of art: if art is about creating a relationship between the viewer and work then the more people who experience the work the better.

 

James

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I also keep an eye out for that one James. Not long after it was installed it burned down leaving just the frame and was then repaired, so I like to think of it as "The Wicker Man Escaping his Fate". Probably not what the artist had in mind.

I also have a broad definition of art, communication of information, ideas but especially of mood.

[ollypenrice]

If a definition of art becomes too wide it surely runs the risk of including things which are not art? A dog is not art but can reach you emotionally, engage with you, on many levels. The word is related to 'artifice' so it has to be a representation of something rather than the thing itself, or it has to be made rather than found. Figurative or abstract, it needs to be an artifice. In introducing this requirement we introduce the idea of its being well made which is one of the things which distinguishes good art from bad.

Olly

PS You are luckier with your roadside art, James, than I am. South of Sisteron we regularly pass three crude tubular triangles holding trianges of fabric. They are called 'Sails' and have absolutely none of the subtle geometry of real sails on a sailing boat. None of the tightening compound curves as they come to their attachment points. A plaque announces that these dollops of aesthetic nothingness are the work of someone who styles himself  'Créateur Graffin.' The fabric seems to have blown away and we can only hope that the rest will follow...