Poor old Damian Hirst.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I thought the word communication in my definition made it clear that I was talking about deliberate acts.  People don't usually communicate with people by hurling animals at them (although I do remember an example of exceptionally clear communication affected by careful placement of a horse's head).

[johnrt]

Well, despite what you all think, I am very pleased to say I have my entry for next years competition sorted good and early.

 

 

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

I thought the word communication in my definition made it clear that I was talking about deliberate acts.  People don't usually communicate with people by hurling animals at them (although I do remember an example of exceptionally clear communication affected by careful placement of a horse's head).

Sure, my point was a general one, not aimed directly at your post. Communication needs to be a part of any definition of art, I reckon. In fact it might help distinguish between art and craft since there need not necessarily be any intention to communicate in the making of a work of craftsmanship? Not sure about that. I'll have to ruminate over that one!

Olly

[Stub Mandrel]

We have to be careful of making a definition of art too narrow.

I believe everyone is capable of artistic creativity. Sometimes crude or poor art is acclaimed as 'great art' for a multitude of reasons, but crudeness or poorness does not make something invalid as art.

Iconoclasm is an important part of art; art has to evolve or it can just become reproduction or pastiche.

[Stub Mandrel]

Separate point; I fear, Olly, that you are in danger of setting the bar a bit to high, but I have to agree that when the engineered part of a sculpture overcomes any elements of grace, perhaps for engineering reasons, it fails.

The B of the Bang failed from an engineering perspective because they tried to hard to make it graceful, but if it had been made more robust, would it have failed as art?

This sculpture by Timothy Tolkien in West Bromwich is hugely popular, but I personally think it's lost the grace of the original aircraft by having the supporting beams far more robust than the planes:

Whilst this statue in Brownhills by John McKenna is one of my families favourite pieces of public art:

[ollypenrice]

29 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

We have to be careful of making a definition of art too narrow.

I believe everyone is capable of artistic creativity. Sometimes crude or poor art is acclaimed as 'great art' for a multitude of reasons, but crudeness or poorness does not make something invalid as art.

Iconoclasm is an important part of art; art has to evolve or it can just become reproduction or pastiche.

Yes, you're right. Sincere art from an inexpert artist can be good. Maybe this describes child art? I can't see insincere art ever being any good, though. There's that great phrase from Oscar Wilde: If a thing's worth doing it's worth doing badly.

26 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Separate point; I fear, Olly, that you are in danger of setting the bar a bit to high, but I have to agree that when the engineered part of a sculpture overcomes any elements of grace, perhaps for engineering reasons, it fails.

The B of the Bang failed from an engineering perspective because they tried to hard to make it graceful, but if it had been made more robust, would it have failed as art?

This sculpture by Timothy Tolkien in West Bromwich is hugely popular, but I personally think it's lost the grace of the original aircraft by having the supporting beams far more robust than the planes:

Whilst this statue in Brownhills by John McKenna is one of my families favourite pieces of public art:

I agree with you again here. For me the 'trails' are too dumpy and earthbound to signify the elegance and freedom of flight. On the other hand the John McKenna is remarkable. The use of stainless steel on that scale makes a big part of the impact. I'd like to get to see that next time I'm back in the UK.

Olly

[Davey-T]

Not sure why but Anthony Gormleys "Another Place" iron man sculptures are my favourite although I haven't seen them in the "flesh" so to speak, it's on my list of things to do.

His explanation of them is straight forward and understandable without any artyfarty esoteric explanation.

A night time image of them looking at the stars would be nice, I could enter it in astro photo of the year and claim it bridges the space between art and imaging 

Dave

 

[AllanJ]

I have greatly enjoyed reading the posts in this topic, and returning to the original theme I was curious to know who were the judges. One was Wolfgang Tillmans. A couple of quotes from that essential source Wikipedia:

Tillmans was the first photographer - and also the first non-English person - to be awarded the Tate annual Turner Prize. Total Solar Eclipse Grid (1998), a set of which was included in his Turner Prize installation and is now in the permanent collection of the Tate, documents the spectacle of a solar eclipse. Each of the 21 photographs in the grid was taken during the eclipse of his immediate surroundings in a tropical locale, with varying degrees of light and detail.

Took me a little while to find an image, but here's a link:

I make no comment, just curious.

Allan

 

[cloudsweeper]

Emotional response, yes (with limitations as remarked on by Olly).  

Pure pleasure and admiration at viewing something that took talent (whether lifelike, symbolic, impressionistic or whatever), yes.

But one criterion I go by is If I can do it, it's not art.  I once saw (in a gallery) a huge canvas with the top 2/3 in purple, and the bottom 1/3 in green.  Not art.

(*ducks down behind parapet*)

Doug.

[Davey-T]

5 minutes ago, cloudsweeper said:

Emotional response, yes (with limitations as remarked on by Olly).  

Pure pleasure and admiration at viewing something that took talent (whether lifelike, symbolic, impressionistic or whatever), yes.

But one criterion I go by is If I can do it, it's not art.  I once saw (in a gallery) a huge canvas with the top 2/3 in purple, and the bottom 1/3 in green.  Not art.

(*ducks down behind parapet*)

Doug.

Could have been worse, it could have been green at the top and purple at the bottom 

Dave

[swamp thing]

18 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

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

 

 

 

 

First off, the arguments are not all on my side. The laws of optics are on my side. The same exit pupils produce the same surface brightness.  
Not sure If I explain this very well though, maybe we are even arguing the same point  

Did not realise photoshopping was a term. Sorry.
I take my Ps seriously. Admittedly photography is not my job but I am  a keen amateur. I thought fiddling about was about as good a term as any. Obviously not......Bear in mind I'm a craftsman not an english teacher. 

Its still not craft to me and neither is that excellent image. Photography to me is art, not craft. To do it well requires an artists eye. 
I'm not implying their is no skill in photoshopping (seems a strange word to me) It takes considerable time and patience to learn to do it well. I simply do not see it as a craft. 
You seem to think I am having a pop at Ap and I am not. I see it as very artistic and highly skilful but to me it is not craft it's a form of art.

Regards

[ollypenrice]

6 minutes ago, swamp thing said:

First off, the arguments are not all on my side. The laws of optics are on my side. The same exit pupils produce the same surface brightness.  
Not sure If I explain this very well though, maybe we are even arguing the same point  

Did not realise photoshopping was a term. Sorry.
I take my Ps seriously. Admittedly photography is not my job but I am  a keen amateur. I thought fiddling about was about as good a term as any. Obviously not......Bear in mind I'm a craftsman not an english teacher. 

Its still not craft to me and neither is that excellent image. Photography to me is art, not craft. To do it well requires an artists eye. 
I'm not implying their is no skill in photoshopping (seems a strange word to me) It takes considerable time and patience to learn to do it well. I simply do not see it as a craft. 
You seem to think I am having a pop at Ap and I am not. I see it as very artistic and highly skilful but to me it is not craft it's a form of art.

Regards

I don't see you as taking a pop at all, I promise. It's just that in the wake of the recent competition judgement there has been a lot of debate about what AP really is, both here and on some imagers' FB threads. I always find these dicussions interesting but that may be an occupational hazard arising from my previous profession!

The reason I don't feel that AP is predominantly art is that neither the shapes nor the colours in the pictures are in the hands of the imager other than to a very limited extent. (Colour mapping excluded.) Only in very rare cases does a painter try, literally, to mimick reality. (This would be in works of Tromp l'Oeil where the idea is to deceive the viewer into thinking that they are looking at a real object. One of the interesting things about this genre is that it shows that mainstream naturalistic painters are not trying to do this. They are painting for an audience who know they are looking at a picture.) So for me AP does not allow sufficient room for invention to be called art. This is a discussion more about language than about AP, though. That's why it appeals to a former English teacher!

(Regarding exit pupil, I fully accept that side of things. It's at the human end of the exit pupil that I have this lingering doubt, probably unfounded.)

Olly

[Scott]

@ollypenrice,

Toms image is indeed very good, however, a declaration of impartiality soley on the grounds that it's not yours but your imaging partners did give me a chuckle

[ollypenrice]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

@ollypenrice,

Toms image is indeed very good, however, a declaration of impartiality soley on the grounds that it's not yours but your imaging partners did give me a chuckle

It was worth a try!

Olly

[Gasman]

Hi guys

Been following the ebb and flow of this post on the forum with interest and finding all the replies very personal and discussed with much care and passion but can't help wondering if this discussion would have reached 114 replies if the winning image was simply a well exposed, nicely processed shot of say M42 for instance, ie an 'expected' astro shot?. Maybe the judges decision has achieved more than it set out to ? FWIW!

Steve

 

[swamp thing]

3 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

 

The reason I don't feel that AP is predominantly art is that neither the shapes nor the colours in the pictures are in the hands of the imager other than to a very limited extent. (Colour mapping excluded.) Only in very rare cases does a painter try, literally, to mimick reality. (This would be in works of Tromp l'Oeil where the idea is to deceive the viewer into thinking that they are looking at a real object. One of the interesting things about this genre is that it shows that mainstream naturalistic painters are not trying to do this. They are painting for an audience who know they are looking at a picture.) So for me AP does not allow sufficient room for invention to be called art. This is a discussion more about language than about AP, though. That's why it appeals to a former English teacher!

 

But a painter isn't the only form of artist there is Olly  
I understand why you have used painted art for a comparison due to the nature of this thread.

But as an imager you are an artist not a craftsman.

You as the imager interpret what is there. We cannot see it with our eyes. Your image is an interpretation of what exists out there in the cosmos. The object is out there, but it is you as imagers that interprets it. This interpretation results in the image which is art.  

It is not craft to sit "photoshopping" an image. It is you as the imager interpreting the data collected and creating an image. This is art. Not craft. Just because it takes skill it still does not make it a craft.

When I am laying bricks at work I am a craftsman. I make no claim to be an artist. It would be ridiculous of me to do so, yes I am being creative but there is no interpretation. When I'm out doing photography in my own time I am an artist ( a pretty poor one) but I am doing art not craft. I am interpreting what is there, not creating it. Even if my interpretation is as close to whats there as is humanly possible, it is still an interpretation.
If I reversed this and became a photographer (besides making almost no money cause I'm rubbish) I would be still be doing art. It doesn't suddenly become a craft Even If I become a superb photoshopper (is that even a word  ) I'm not a craftsman. I am an artist as I am still interpreting data I am not creating it. 
This is how I see it and I will never call an astro imager a craftsman they are artists. If you wanna be a craftsman come and lay some bricks  

Regards 

[ChrisLX200]

56 minutes ago, Gasman said:

Hi guys

Been following the ebb and flow of this post on the forum with interest and finding all the replies very personal and discussed with much care and passion but can't help wondering if this discussion would have reached 114 replies if the winning image was simply a well exposed, nicely processed shot of say M42 for instance, ie an 'expected' astro shot?. Maybe the judges decision has achieved more than it set out to ? FWIW!

Steve

 

So it's a case of "We'll choose something weird just to get a reaction and stuff the Astro-imagers who put all that effort into producing the genuine thing"?  That would really encourage me to submit an entry (not), and rather reduces the value of actually winning an award.

ChrisH

[Gasman]

Don't quite agree with you there Chris, maybe the fault (if there is a fault?) may be down to the choice of Judge.You ask an astronomer to judge an astro competition ( which maybe on reflection is what RGO should have done) you will get a different winning image to what an artist judge would pick. I submit that if an image of the type expected on a forum such as SGL was chosen then we would all say well done, praise the imager and move on , as it is the post has reached 5 pages now and growing.

Cheers

Steve

 

[ollypenrice]

17 minutes ago, swamp thing said:

But a painter isn't the only form of artist there is Olly  
I understand why you have used painted art for a comparison due to the nature of this thread.

But as an imager you are an artist not a craftsman.

You as the imager interpret what is there. We cannot see it with our eyes. Your image is an interpretation of what exists out there in the cosmos. The object is out there, but it is you as imagers that interprets it. This interpretation results in the image which is art.  

It is not craft to sit "photoshopping" an image. It is you as the imager interpreting the data collected and creating an image. This is art. Not craft. Just because it takes skill it still does not make it a craft.

When I am laying bricks at work I am a craftsman. I make no claim to be an artist. It would be ridiculous of me to do so, yes I am being creative but there is no interpretation. When I'm out doing photography in my own time I am an artist ( a pretty poor one) but I am doing art not craft. I am interpreting what is there, not creating it. Even if my interpretation is as close to whats there as is humanly possible, it is still an interpretation.
If I reversed this and became a photographer (besides making almost no money cause I'm rubbish) I would be still be doing art. It doesn't suddenly become a craft Even If I become a superb photoshopper (is that even a word  ) I'm not a craftsman. I am an artist as I am still interpreting data I am not creating it. 
This is how I see it and I will never call an astro imager a craftsman they are artists. If you wanna be a craftsman come and lay some bricks  

Regards 

The funny thing here is that it seems to me that we agree far more than we disagree. It all hinges on this phrase of yours. 'Your image is an interpretation of what exists out there in the cosmos. The object is out there, but it is you as imagers that interprets it. This interpretation results in the image which is art.' I don't entirely agree that is what we do. Think of an archaeologist excavating an Etruscan vase. He teases out the pieces, damaged and distorted by time and by the medium in which the vase has resided for centuries. He reassembles it in his best attempt to present it as it was when buried in the soil. But he is not the Etruscan artist. He is a crafstman skilled in restoration. In my view I am not an artist. Nature is the artist who created M42. I am just the archaeologist working with the results of ancient light falling on my camera.

 

23 minutes ago, ChrisLX200 said:

So it's a case of "We'll choose something weird just to get a reaction and stuff the Astro-imagers who put all that effort into producing the genuine thing"?  That would really encourage me to submit an entry (not), and rather reduces the value of actually winning an award.

ChrisH

Agreed. I think that the discussion arising directly from this silly choice of winner is banal. The spin off discussion, which was around before the award, is, was and always will be interesting. Provoking 'easy controversy' is what lies behind arts council grants for people walking around Norfolk with planks on their heads. (Boy, that's an old one from the early seventies.) But it still goes on. I can't believe it. I can't believe that charlatans like Damian Hirst get to be 'successful.' He has precisely no success at all amongst the art lovers I know. That the same silliness be introduced into AP is mildly exasperating. It isn't highly exasperating because 99.9% of astrophotographers have already come out and said that they'll have none of it. 

Olly

[Stub Mandrel]

Perhaps only Pure-blood followers of the One True Way should be allowed to enter astrophotography competitions?

[ChrisLX200]

51 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Perhaps only Pure-blood followers of the One True Way should be allowed to enter astrophotography competitions?

Not really, but the judges need to be fully aware of what goes into deep-sky astro-imaging at a fundemental level (for those relevant sections of the competition under consideration here) - they need to appreciate that the data is not simply handed to you on a plate just for the asking but has to be prised from the heavens kicking and screaming. Then it has to be decoded, cleaned up and re-assembled into something that represents what is out there in some meaningful way, and that often takes much longer than capturing the data. The finished image should inform and reveal to the viewer that this is the real beauty of what is out there, and at the same time stretch the imagination as to what it is they are looking at. Without that background it's merely a picture - some different kind of photograph - and how it strikes you visually is then the only metric. Yes, the presentation is a very important part - the framing, choosing a delicate balance of colour hues, carefully honing the contrast and definition - these are the things the expert adds to the image and all are necessary refinements which affect the appearance and impact, and so make one worker's output stand out from another. However these refinements need to be built on top of a very high standard of skill which generated the image data in the first place, not substitue for it. I stand by my opinion that the winning image is all fluff and no substance, innovative and artistic yes - but it neither informs nor reveals the beauty of celestial objects.

ChrisH

[Gasman]

8 minutes ago, ChrisLX200 said:

Then it has to be decoded, cleaned up and re-assembled into something that represents what is out there in some meaningful way, and that often takes much longer than capturing the data. The finished image should inform and reveal to the viewer that this is the real beauty of what is out there. 

You mean take an image and then put your own personal touch to it?. Isn`t that exactly what an artist does?

Steve

[Stub Mandrel]

5 minutes ago, ChrisLX200 said:

Not really,...I stand by my opinion that the winning image is all fluff and no substance, innovative and artistic yes - but it neither informs nor reveals the beauty of celestial objects.

ChrisH

I won't argue wit that Chris.

But it looks like my link got broken so you may not have appreciated my point - it was to this, which seems to be exactly the same argument as here, but taken to the limit:

Quote

PixInsight pursues a scientific, highly technical approach to image processing. Most of our tools have been designed to solve the problems specific to astrophotography and other technical imaging fields through rigorous and flexible implementations, where the user has full control on every relevant parameter of each applied process. While we try to design and implement our tools to facilitate the user's work as much as possible, ease of use is not one of our main goals. In general, we make no concessions to simplification: there are no fast-food solutions in PixInsight. Versatility, efficiency, powerful tools, rigorous implementations and the development of astrophotography through image processing culture are the main elements of our vision and our mission as the developers of PixInsight.

Photoshop® has not been conceived or designed to solve the kind of problems that arise in highly technical imaging fields, of which astrophotography is one of the most demanding ones. Photoshop® is a general-purpose image edition application. It is excellent for image edition and retouching but it doesn't qualify for astrophotography because it lacks the necessary algorithms and tools; it is simply not based on the correct principles to provide the required solutions. Photoshop® pursues a simplified approach to image manipulation, where the user has little or no control over the applied processes. Due to its lack of resources and to the inadequacy of its implementations, Photoshop® is being applied to astrophotography through tricky procedures, including arbitrary manual manipulations and retouching practices without documentary and algorithmic basis that we consider unacceptable in astrophotography.

Hand-painted masks, arbitrary manual selections, retouching, unrigorous layering techniques and other 'magical recipes' are just the opposite of what we understand by astrophotography. Contrarily to what it may seem at first sight, these procedures tend to block your creativity: they teach you nothing about your data and don't require you to understand your images and the actual problems you have to face and solve to build them.

PixInsight provides you with a completely different platform where you can develop your astrophotography with solid foundations. With PixInsight we want to grow your image processing knowledge, as the best way to materialize your creativity and your pursuit of excellence.

 

[Stub Mandrel]

Anyway to cheer things up here's my entry for APOD, the Pacman... sorry, Paxman Nebula:

 

[ChrisLX200]

4 minutes ago, Gasman said:

You mean take an image and then put your own personal touch to it?. Isn`t that exactly what an artist does?

Steve

No. I mean to use the tools available to clarify your vision of real celestial vistas, something that is out there which you could never see without the aid of the telescope and CCD camera. It should stimulate my imagination as to the vastness of space, I want to go there and the image should take me. An artist would imagine something and create it - real data is not required and the vision needs to reside nowhere other than in his/her mind.

ChrisH