Re: [APML]: Art or Science

["Robin Casady" <rcasady@carmelcoast.com>]

The Astro-Photography Mailing List
------------------------------------

>Is it Art or Science.

The short answer is neither. The definition of Art is much debated, but to
safely fall into the category of Art, a work should have both aesthetics and
expression. Some Art has more of one and little of the other and is still
called Art, but not without controversy and dissension. 

Amateur astrophotography has aesthetics, but to my knowledge has very little
if any expression. So, for astrophotography to be Art, you would have to
include in the definition of Art, works without expression. An argument
could be made that if Alfred Stieglitz's cloud series (I believe it was
called "Equivalents," or something like that) could be considered Art, so
could astrophotographs. However, part of what classified those images as Art
was equating them with emotions. It was not so much that he took images of
clouds, but that he offered these images as equivalents to emotions he was
feeling. It was the concept of comparing clouds to emotions as much as the
aesthetics of the images that made them Art.

I think Chuck covered the issue about astrophotography not being science.
Chuck also used the term "art" in a way that can be a little confusing to a
discussion of "Art." It is a legitimate use, but can cloud the issue of what
is usually debated as, "Is it Art?". If you can substitute the word "craft"
and still mean the same thing, then you are talking about "art" (as in
artful, artsy) not "Art." I think that Chuck was indeed talking about "art"
not "Art."

Chris:
> I'm also of the opinion that Art and Science are not mutually exclusive
> and deep down, may really be two sides of the same thing.

Art and Science both have an element of discovery to them. They both can
call upon the same intuitive skills to gain a result. They have entirely
different rigors as to what is an acceptable result.

The recent discussions about what is true color in astrophotography have
lead me to the conclusion that amateur astrophotography is all aesthetics.
To me it matters very little as to whether the Ha emissions are in proper
per proportion to the OIII emissions. Since many of the films are incapable
of attaining the proper balance, artificial means would have to be used to
adjust the image to show "true" color. Should we acquire measurements of
these emissions through scientific sources to properly balance our images?
I'm not interested in that. I figure that I'm dealing with false color, so
it might as well be interesting color.

In the history of Fine Art Photography there were rival camps regarding what
was proper. There was the f/64 Group that tried to be true to nature as much
as possible. They wanted everything to be in sharp focus, the full range of
values rendered, and the expression to be in the selection and presentation.
In opposition to these ideas were Man Ray (a surrealist painter and
photographer) and others who believed that any technical means could be used
for the purposes of expression. Man Ray once said that when a student
presented him with a perfectly rendered image of a landscape, his reaction
was, "Zeiss should get an A for this image." I thought that expressed his
attitude very well. In photography, Man Ray was best known for his
Rayograms. These were photograms made by laying objects upon photo paper in
the darkroom and flashing the light on briefly. The image was most important
to him. How you got there didn't matter.

In astrophotography, I think Chuck would be closer to the f/64 Group. I
might wander a little more towards the looser restrictions of Man Ray than
Chuck does. On one extreme you would have the scientifically accurate
rendering of the visual spectrum as seen by someone with a "normal" ability
to see color if there were enough light for the color to be actually seen.
On the other extreme, you have "Space Art" --  artificial renderings of
scenes in space. Amateur astrophotography usually falls somewhere between
the extremes, perhaps closer to the first. How close you wish to come to
either extreme is your choice, IMO.

Robin Casady
http://www.CarmelCoast.com

Casady & Greene, Inc.
http://www.casadyg.com