Re: [APML]: Art or Science

[Jerry Lodriguss <jml@astropix.com>]

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


>>By this definition, I think astrophotography certainly qualifies.
>
>What "unusual perception" are we adding to astrophotos?

We perceive the beauty of nature in our photos. It is unusual because most
other people are watching MTV.  It is an especially unusual perception
because of the special techniques we have to use to reveal this beauty
because it is normally invisible to the unaided eye. And, yes, I consider
photomicrographs to be art to, IF they evoke an emotional response in me,
the same definition I apply to astrophotographs.  Bad ones ain't art. Good
ones are.


------------------------------------------------------------

>>Bzzzzzzz!  Sorry,no mention of photography! <G>
>
>When was your dictionary written? That sounds like a definition that was in
>use in the 17th Century. ;-)


Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, second college
edition.  I didn't say I agreed with this, I just mention it because I
found it funny. I don't think there are many people who know anything about
art that would not consider photography to be an art form if practiced
correctly. <G>


------------------------------------------------------------

>It wasn't what he asserted about his work after the fact, it was part of the
>work. He was putting the images in a specific context to make a statement.
>It wasn't hugely profound, but it was different than just taking pictures of
>clouds. He was saying something about the clouds. 

Huh?  <G>  You agree with this?  Or are you just agruing a potential
interpretation?

What specifically was he saying about the clouds?

The coulds WERE emotions?  The clouds REPRESENTED emotions?  The clouds
provoked an emotional response in him so he photographed them?  The photos
of the clouds reminded him of the emotional response he got from the
clouds? The photos themselves provoked an emotional response?

I don't think just asserting it makes it so. There has to really be an
emotional response in the perception of the artifact that we call the "work
of art".


--------------------------------------------------------------

>>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.
>
>Are you merely recording something beautiful, or are you adding a personal
>perspective to it? The film Itself is putting an interpretation on the
>image, perhaps the film is creating Art.


I don't believe "beauty" is out there in the world, any more so than
"color" is.  Beauty is a perception that takes place inside of a human mind
and consciousness.

I don't think the film takes the photo itself. And I don't think the
autoguider qualifies as the author of a deepsky astrophoto either. 

You have argued that Ansel Adams' photographs qualify as art, but you could
say the exact same thing about him. Wasn't he merely recording something
beautiful? He waited till the light was right, but according to your
argument, the beauty was still out there in nature. Anyone else standing
there at the same time could have recorded exactly the same thing, right?
He didn't create the scene he saw in nature, he merely recorded it. Don't
misunderstand me here, I think Adams work is art, I am merely using your
own arguements against you.  You can't have it both ways. <G>  


-----------------------------------------------------------

>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.


Again you have given a counter example to your own argument!

Everything you say about Adams' photographs, I can say about mine.  I have
to wait, sometimes weeks at a time for conditions to be exactly right. I
have to know where to go and travel to great lengths, literally, to be able
to take some of my photos. 

I spent weeks researching where to shoot Hale-Bopp at perihelion. I had to
wait for the weather to be just right, for a winter storm to clear. I had
an exact vision of the photo I wanted, my two sons watching the comet, and
I went out and "made" that photo. Everything in it is real, and it is not
just some snapshot. (See http://www.astrosurf.com/astropix/HTML/040197A.HTM )

Now, understand, you can look at this photo and not like it at all, and I
won't be offended.  And if you don't like it, then it is certainly not art
to you. And this is my point, that art is in the perception.

Like Adams, some "amateur" standing next to me is not going to get the same
photo because it took me years of practice and experience to perfect the
craft. And, I know how to CORRECTLY expose a foreground object with a
strobe, unlike certain others who shall remain nameless... but whose
initials are "Spaceboy". <G>


Funny true story: There is another photographer (famous nationally known
award winner) at the paper where I work who told me that when Halley's
comet was around that he got the paper he worked for then in Texas to rent
him a C8 and send him to McDonald Observatory to photograph the comet.  He
had absolutely no previous experinece with either astronomy or
astrophotography.  So he went out to west Texas, spent a week shooting the
comet, and did not get a single picture that was usable. As he told me this
story years later, it was obvious that he STILL did not understand why his
photos did not come out.  I explained things to him and told him that he
had about as much chance of being successful as he would have if he had
walked into an operating room and tried to perform brain surgery. <G>


----------------------------------------------------------






>
>>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.
>
>So, a microscope creates Art? It reveals things we cannot normally perceive.
>You can use creativity to do many things in everyday life, are you making
>Art?


No to the first question. Yes to the second. As I have previously said,
just as film does not expose itself, a microscope does not create art, nor
does a telescope, by itself, create art.  In fact, I would go so far as to
say that "Art" is not in nature at all.  Beauty is in nature, but not art.

"Art" is an artifact, something that is made by man, to either reflect, or
represent the beauty of nature.  It is the artist saying "This is my photo
of a sunset. I think it was a beautiful sunset and I want to share it with
you."  If the viewer agrees the the photo evokes an emotional response of
beauty within him or her, then the artist has succeded and it is art.  And
yes, I consider this definition to be very wide-reaching. Photomicrographs
can be art.  A good meal can be art.  Good sex can be art.  You name it.  

Actually, I think I will go a step farther. I will even throw out the
"artists" intention. It doesn't matter. I consider many works of art to
have been created unintentionally.

The key thing is the perception of the artifact.  If you think it's art,
then it's art.


>Or, I know it when I feel its message, Dude. 

Oh yea baby! I know we are talking about the same thing, and I suspect we
really agree about this deeply. But it sure is fun to argue. <G>

"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and
persuade themselves that they have a better idea." - John Ciardi

Take care,

Jerry


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