Re: [APML]: Art or Science

[Jerry Lodriguss <jml@astropix.com>]

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

Robin Casady wrote:

>>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. 


Gee I LOVE definitions!  They are right there in the dictionary for
everyone to look up. <G>  If there is a disagreement, we can just look it
up and get a definitive answer! <VBG>

Unfortunately, my dictionary doesn't say anything about "expression" in its
definition of "art". <G>

<G>  And, the really  funny thing is, under the definition of "expression"
the first one is "a pressing out or squeezing out, as of juice"!!!!! <G>
Seriously!   Ok, it also says "picturing, representing, or symbolizing in
art, music, etc".

It also says, VERY interestingly: "art: human ability to make things;
creativity of man as distinguished from the world of nature", and more to
the point: "art: creative work or it's principles, making or doing of
things that display form, beauty and unusual perception."

By this definition, I think astrophotography certainly qualifies.

The dictionary also has a definition of "fine art": (originally considered
purely aesthetic, as distinguished from the 'useful' arts) 1. any of the
art forms that include drawing, painting, sculpture, and ceramics, or,
occasionally, architecture, literature, music, dramatic art or dancing."   

Bzzzzzzz!  Sorry,no mention of photography! <G>




>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.


Now, an "artist" can assert anything he wants. Stieglitz can say his cloud
photos were equivalent to emotions and if the mere concept of such an
assertion qualifies the photos as art as expression, then this is an almost
trivial definition and it isn't even interesting.  Anybody can assert
anything they want about their work.  In other words, the art is not in the
asserting, it is in the creation by the artist and the subsequent
perception by others.

If Stieglitz says a particular cloud photo is an equivalent of say
"sorrow", and a viewer sees it the same, then it's art to both of them.
However, if an artist smears a piece of dog feces on a canvas and says it
is the equivalent of "love" and I look at it and all I see is a piece of
crap, then it may be art to him, but it certainly isn't to me.

So, art is really perceptions and it can be different things to different
people.

But I have to disagree that astrophotography does not contain any
"expression".  When I take an astrophoto, (at least a good one <G>), I see
the incredible beauty of nature and it fills me with joy and wonder, and
this is what I am expressing in my photo.

To say that an astrophoto is a craft/art (art with a little "a") and is a
"mere"  documentary recording of nature and is not creative is to say that
Michaelangelo's David is the same thing. And, it IS creative because
through craft and technique it allows us to record things we cannot
normally perceive with our unaided senses. To me, this is where
astrophotography transcends craft and becomes an art form.

We can argue about the meaning of art till the cows come home and never
reach a consensus except saying "I don't know what it is, but I know it
when I see it". <G>

Let's argue about something with an answer like, oh, guiding an SCT with
piggyback guidescope.

JUST KIDDING! <G>

Jerry










mailto:jml@astropix.com
Web page: http://www.astrosurf.com/astropix/index.html 
Astrophotography,Photoshop enhancement tips and techniques