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

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

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

>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?

Often what is said about photography as Art is that the selection process is
an important part of what qualifies an image as being Art. After selecting a
subject, Ansel would sometimes spend days in a location to take one image.
He would watch the light and determine when it showed the scene as he
wanted. Then he would take the shot at just the right moment. Other times he
would happen to catch a scene just as something great was happening.
"Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico 1944" was a drive-by. He just barely had
enough time to set up and shoot before the grave markers went into shadow.

Composition is also an important aspect of what makes Ansel's work
considered to be Art. The dynamics of his compositions have an affect on the
viewer. Composition and selection are closely related and can be used
together to make a statement with a photograph.

In astrophotography, selection is often a matter of picking an NGC number.
It is not quite the same as picking a moment in time, an angle of view,
relationship of objects, effect of lighting, and placing borders that define
the image. Composition in astrophotography is often little more than hitting
the object. The borders are usually defined by the scope we are using. We
are not making the same kinds of aesthetic decisions, nor as many, as Ansel
did in his work.

I've always seen Dorthea Lang's work included in Fine Art Photography. Her
most famous shot of the mother in the dust bowl was staged. She asked the
woman to pose. They were both aware that they were making statements. The
WPA project that paid for her work was mainly concerned with recording, but
much of what was done has come to be considered art because of the power of
its expression.

>What makes an artist? Tools of his or her trade? Or, what is generated
>from that individuals heart. 

My definition of Art requires "heart." My definition also does not draw a
line, but considers Art as a value that can have gradations of strength. The
typical astrophoto may not be entirely devoid of artistic content, but it is
far weaker than the works of Ansel Adams and Dorthea Lang, IMO.

> Yet just because I can paint or change the contrast
>levels, have I created art?

Only, if so doing makes a statement.

> If the love of your craft, dictates the
>efforts required to create an image, are you an artist?

Some people use that definition of 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.  

Perhaps you become a technician, or a craftsman. When you start adding
expression to your work you become an artist.

>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. 

To define Art is to give definition to a three letter word. It is not a
thing in reality, only a concept in a language.

>I tend to think, for myself, the world of art is full of stuffed shirts.

Thomas Wolfe wrote a very enjoyable book on the subject called, "The Painted
Word."

>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.

"Art" is a word. If we do not define it, we do not know what we are saying.
Those stuffed shirts, you refer to, depend on Art being a mysterious and ill
defined word when they use it in their con games of status, and snobbery,
and profit.

Robin Casady
http://www.CarmelCoast.com

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