Astro artist?

[andrew s]

@ollypenrice felt the term "loaded" in another thread.  Maybe it is, but to my mind it is the highest complement.  

I am not a imager,  but when I look at the entrants to the IKO M16 competition I am reminded of the quality of the images produced during the peak of "realistic art" paintings. The skill and knowledge those artists displayed in the making, properties and uses of the materials they used seems similar to that displayed by Olly and his kind in the acquiring and processing of astronomical images.

The sheer variety of the IKO M16 entries confirms this to my mind. One seems broody and pulls me into the core, while another is bright and reaches out at me. They all display the creativity and judgement of there creators.

Clearly, they are not realistic in the sense of realistic art but if not art what are they?

Regards Andrew 

Edited August 24, 2020 by andrew s

[ollypenrice]

Thanks for drawing attention to this thread, which I hadn't seen. My remark about the term 'astro artist' being a loaded term was speciific to that thread and context. I think astrophotography involves a variable blend of art, craft and science. If I had to choose only one of those terms I'd go for 'craft' since it uses tools and materials (captured light) to make something not unconstrained, like art, but constrained by function like a chair, a piece of pottery or an item of clothing. So what is the 'function' of an astrophoto? It must resemble or provide information about the object it represents. That's the constraint not necessarily faced by artists.

This argument isn't watertight. The IKO image challenge involves a kind of astrophotography which I don't do myself, ie narrowband colour mapping. As you know, the original idea behind colour mapping was scientific: different gasses mapped by different colours are presented as an exercise in information visualization.  Very few amateur astronomers work in narrowband for this purpose so their use of colour is purely artistic and unconstrained. They have a free choice of colour. That's the difference between broadband and narrowband imaging and probably lies behind my own choice of broadband, albeit enhanced by narrowband.

I don't want to move outside the constraints of natural colour in my imaging but this isn't a value judgement, it's just a personal preference. (By natural colour I mean the calibrated colour produced by RGB filters. It's a good approximation of what we would see with big enough eyes, as proven by daytime photography using this method.) When I add Ha to red and OIII to green/blue I have a copy of the original RGB open and try to stay as close to it as possible. The colours will certainly drift but reds remains red, greens green and blues blue. That's a constraint I like because it makes me more craftsman than artist. I'm uncomfortable with colour mapping because it strikes me (irrationally perhaps) as a game without rules.* It isn't for me but I'm glad others do it and enjoy it.

Olly

* Apparently even rugby has rules. You'd never have thought it! 😁

[andrew s]

Very happy with the term craft @ollypenrice as by choosing realistic art rather than abstract art I had intended your concept of realism. I had not fully thought through narrow band v broad band but accept your diagnosis. 

Regards Andrew