Re: [APML]: Astrophotography or Astro-Art?

[Gregory David Stempel <fyrframe@ptinet.net>]

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

Chuck

(This one is meant to be public_grin)

You make a couple of interesting points well worth further
consideration.

First, >>>>none of it to be art no matter how much digital 
processing is applied to an image. <<<<<  

Does this mean Art is only a manipulated process of the subject
rendered? 
I can speak in terms of photography. Here's an example; Ansel Adams, he
shot straight forward images of the scenes he found himself in front of.
His only form of manipulation was to insure all the tonal values were
rendered as optimal aa possible, no changes. His work was considered
Art. Dorthea Lang was a documentarian. She (there's controversy in her
work) did not change anything. Her work is fact. Yet has ended up in
Gallery which represent artists. Manipulation should nor does it
constitute Art. What is "The Art of...." Is it Art to build a telescope?
Is it Art to use it to it's fullest potential?

This leads to the second point...>>>>Art - For me an image begins to
take on the quality of 
art when techniques are applied solely for aesthetic 
reasons that make the image deviate considerably 
from its appearance _after_ the basic techniques have been 
applied.<<<< 
What makes an artist? Tools of his or her trade? Or, what is generated
from that individuals heart. Granted there is no other way to express
art but with tools. Yet just because I can paint or change the contrast
levels, have I created art? If the love of your craft, dictates the
efforts required to create an image, are you an artist? Another
consideration, when do you become an artist. As soon as you process your
first image? I have a telescope, cameras, scanners, photoshop, and blank
paper. If I scan an image, manipulate the values to satisfaction, output
it to my HP, have I become an Artist? A researcher of the hydrogen
content of M31_grin would do the same thing.  

Hobbyist's build funny faces out of dead fruit, or tie flys with
colorful fiber and string or build birdhouses in their garage, do they
not? Are they artists?

Due to the nature of this list, the following qualification is in order.
I meant this as comment, not an attack. Feeding the conversation.
I find this a very interesting topic. My points are simple; to define
art is to define creation. To define creation is to define the nature of
us all. 

I tend to think, for myself, the world of art is full of stuffed shirts.
I believe the work most of you do is of the quality reserved for gallery
shows,. Yet it does not end up there. I believe you are artists who
create art through a very controlled efforts. What ever it takes. 

I feel there is no definition of art, and we should not try with the
exception of what our hearts and minds find comfortable.
I have always called myself a photograher not an artist. I shoot news,
and nature. Other people call me an artist.

Take care everyone.
Gregory david Stempel