The "Art" of Astrophotography - Article

[Andy01]

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jun/12/why-most-important-art-today-made-in-space

Interesting reading...

"So, one reason science has become so good at making art since 1995 is that art has shaped the way scientists see. Astronomers look at a nebula and see a grandiose painting."

So are we producing scientific images, technical art or cosmic landscapes?
Maybe all three?
I am unashamedly placing one foot firmly in the technical art camp, but others may have their own thoughts...

What do you think?
Cheers
Andy

[bojan]

Techical photography it is, IMHO

[billdan]

Thanks for providing that link Andy it was really nice to read.

It does put things into perspective, that we as amateurs who tinker and curse our equipment to tweak the best performance we can to make our images. We then keep our fingers crossed that we have enough data to make not just a decent image but a work of art.
Regularly now, some of us produce real works of art that wows not only other astronomers but the general public as well.

As for your question, I think NB imaging is technical art and OSC imaging is cosmic landscapes.

Question, do you know what that last photograph in the article is? The one described as a delicate butterfly. Is it something we amateurs can collect data on?


Cheers
Bill

[alocky]

Hi Bill it's NGC 6302 in Scorpio often called the bug. Check out the deep space astrophotography forum for a couple of recent excellent images.
Cheers,
Andrew.

[billdan]

Thanks Andrew, I went back and had a look at the bug images and I see the resemblance now.
Bill

[rally]

Try to define it by its volume of popularity and it will metamorphasise into something new that blurrs the traditional definition.

That is what makes pictures of an old target presented in a new way exciting and pleasurable.

If we change what the eye can see for the purpose of recording or deriving useful information I guess we can call it Science, if we change it to please the eye its Art. If both occurs at the same time then it must be Artistic Science !!!
No reason science cant be pleasing to the eye.

My take.