| Is astrophotography a science, art or both? | |
|---|---|
| Astrophotography is a science | |
| Astrophotography is an art | |
| Astrophotography is both a science and an art | |
| Login to vote and view results. |
22.76
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Timothy Martin: If you think that you are doing science, please give me the theory that you are trying to disprove or the cause and effect that you are trying to measure along with your hypothesis showing how data from your images will be used to support it. Simply because you wonder what M31 looks like imaged through your telescope does not make that a science project and sadly that's the kind of project I often see on display at elementary school level science fairs. Imaging M31 is a worthwhile thing to do but simply creating an image is not science; it's an activity not unlike taking a picture of your family in front of your house. Based on your questions about the doctor's efforts to reproduce Hubble's results, it sounds like you haven't published very many articles in scientific journals. The distance to Andromeda has been measured countless times using different methods using very sophisticated techniques that include careful error analysis. The doctor did an amazing job with his measurements but his hope as an amateur of publishing his results in a serious journal were extremely low. Journals are peer reviewed and because of the large number of submissions, they focus on publishing papers that push the boundaries of understanding. Just because his work wasn't published in a scientific journal didn't make it any less of a science project. You've raised other points that clearly show that you do not have a firm grasp of what science is and you seem fixed in your opinions. So, at this point, I don't think that I'm going to change your mind. It might be beneficial for you to read up on the subject of science and to even read some scientific journals to better understand the process. Simply creating beautiful and inspiring images of the cosmos is not a scientific endeavor. John |
2.11
#...
·
|
|---|
|
It seems like some disagreement here is based on the definition of “science.” If we are defining science relative to the scientific method, or generally as deliberate or purposeful science, as it sounds like John is doing, then I would have to agree that there presents a much clearer delineation of what is and isn’t science in astrophotography, broadly landing on the “isn’t science” side of things, outside images published as part of a scientific pursuit, which would generally drop the idea of post-processing a lovely image. And I think a very fair argument can be made for defining it as such. Such is often even incorporated into the definition. But if we are defining science to encompass something that may have scientific application or merit—say, accidentally discovering something, or data which may be referenced in some capacity to see what may have been happening at a point, or the images published from Hubble, James Webb based on data collected for scientific research but, in this capacity, used to educate the public on a scientific interest and garner interest in science—it becomes much easier to argue that science plays a greater or fuzzier or varied role in astrophotography. Kinda of a clearer version of where the “this is art” discussion usually heads. People come into that discussion with different definitions of “art”—whether well-intentioned or based on the interpretation which supports the answer they want to believe—and end up arguing over what is and isn’t art when they don’t even agree on what “art” happens to be. Just in terms of science, if incorporating the deliberate component of scientific research, the answer becomes pretty clear in my opinion. |
|
22.76
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
James Peirce: James, As I've said, discovery is not in itself science. @Marcel Drechsler and the rest of his team have discovered an extraordinary number of new objects but they have also contributed to refereed papers that use those discoveries to further theories about how those objects formed and how they fit into larger cosmological theories. Being the first to discover a Nova has no value unless the discoverer immediately notifies the Astronomical Union so that various instruments can be turned on the object to study it further. This recently happened (maybe a year or two ago) when an amateur who was setting up a new remote telescope and noticed a "new" star in a galaxy. He certainly contributed to the science that followed but that was because he was wise enough to immediately report it. So in cases like that, amateurs can contribute to scientific studies but the mere act of imaging without any connection to a science based study isn't science. As for Hubble and JWST images, those "pretty pictures" are released to generate public support for these very expensive programs that tax payers fund. Yes, they are inspiring and they do generate support; but the pictures themselves are not what the science mission is all about. I personally have a lot invested in my imaging gear but I don't really have any scientific mission behind it and I'm totally comfortable thinking of the whole thing as mostly an art project with a certain amount of engineering thrown in for good luck. John |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I've always thought of it to be both. At the same time, I have always believed that it's hard to compare AP to other art forms such as painting, because there is nothing unique about it, anyone can search the web for images of any deep sky object and find countless examples that, to the untrained eye, all look nearly the same. I have had multiple family and friends tell me "you should sell your work", to which I give them the aforementioned explanation. Due to ever increasing light pollution globally, the key take away is that astrophotography is a means to showcase one of the rare beauties of nature which most people will never be able to observe with the naked eye, and that in it of itself is an art form. |
7.90
#...
·
|
|---|
| Observational astronomy has long be considered the "only" scientific astronomical endeavor and in that sense taking some true image of astronomical objects is potentially a scientific endeavor (or discovery) without requiring any further analysis or fitting into any mathematical model of whatever is relevant to it. In fact it doesn't even need to be known to be potentially a fact of science, it just needs to be observed. But on the other hand AP is very much akin to landscape photography but with the landscape being essentially invisible to the naked eye. |
11.41
#...
·
|
|---|
John Hayes: One hypothesis would be that there's a distinct formation located at RA 0h, 42m, 44.3s, Dec 41d, 16m, 7.5s. 15,000+ images confirm this. And all 15,000+ of them reveal things about M31 that were wholly unknown until a few hundred years ago, but we've already agreed that it doesn't have to be new to be science, unless: Are you saying that Charles Messier wasn't doing science? Or does a simple observation of an object count as science only when it's a new discovery? John Hayes: No, not very many. Some 40 years ago in graduate school I contributed programming and statistical analysis to several published papers involving magnetic susceptibility testing of copper ibuprofenate compounds. But my qualifications are irrelevant to the arguments presented and bringing it up contains more than a hint of ad hominem. And actually, I do read a good number of articles in respected journals and often include links to them in my image descriptions. I often don't understand much of what's in them, but I see the rigor in what these scientists are doing and admire it. And there is generally something in each of them that I can wrap my brain around. In any case, I already confessed to being a lawyer, so you can hit me with that if you like. John Hayes: Really? I haven't asked for or commented on your qualifications or experience, or attacked your intellect or understanding. I really don't care about that. I'm interested in the quality of your arguments. You raise many good points that are compelling. So I do think I have a firm grasp on what you think science is. I think I understand that pretty thoroughly. I just don't agree with some of your characterizations, or the boundaries you've attempted to establish here. I'll be perfectly happy to change my mind when I see an argument I find persuasive. I'm not married to my opinions. |
|
2.11
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
John Hayes: At face value it sounds rather like we are in agreement about the answer, if only relative to the interpretation you have outlined. If one does not consider contributing to science actual “science” then I’m not sure what disagreement there would be to raise about your point. But if one considered contributing to “science” a scientific undertaking or a part of “science,” they may have an argument to make. Hence my point about it seeming like a part of this discussion is a disagreement over what “science” means. |
|
22.76
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Timothy Martin:John Hayes: Let me apologize for sending a message that wasn't intended. First, I did not intend to convey any personal attack on either your intellect or your qualifications to have this discussion. I am sure that you are very sharp and experienced in the art of astro-imaging. Having published a lot of technical papers and served as a reviewer for a couple of technical journals, I know that virtually everyone who has published a technical paper in a refereed journal would understand why the guy who reproduced Hubble's measurement might not have approached a scientific journal with his article in much the same way that physics students who reproduce famous experiments in their lab courses would never submit their results to a journal. My comment about your question reflected that fact and it wasn't meant as a personal attack on you in any way. As I said, that guy was an amateur who was simply trying to reproduce Hubble's measurement, which ultimately had a profound effect on cosmology. Second, you keep bringing up examples of activities that do not have anything to do with a science based study, but that doesn't make it right for me to have said anything about what you may or may not have a "firm grasp" of and I apologize. I should have simply said, "I'm done having this conversation." I don't have much patience for going around and around on stuff like this. I've said my piece and if you don't buy it, there's not much I can add. So, although I'm left shaking my head over some of the stuff you've said (and continue to say), I really am done with it. John |
 #...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Brian Boyle: *I completely agree with Brian and @John Hayes on this. As a retired scientist, trained on the method and published in my field, I too am a bit troubled by those not trained as such making claims and definitive statements that AP is science. That said, anyone is free to believe what you want and even convince your family and relatives that you are doing science. Most here are not. Conversely, those who struggle with AP being an art seem to have some sensitivities to being called an artist. As if doing science is "better" than doing art. Most art requires a technology of sorts. Be it a fine paintbrush or a supercomputer. That you fiddle with complex light capturing tools is all technology that is the product of some science at some point in the past. That doesn't make the product of that technology science. Technology does not make science. Science is a process of real discovery in the setting of a community which can critically review the discovery and judge it as novel. Meaning, just because you personally discovered something does not make it meaningful if it is already well known, which admittedly can be personally rewarding. I have posted much earlier on this thread that simple discovery, for the purpose of cataloging is a tradition in science. Many areas of science started as such. Maybe this is not the most current idea of the scientific method, but was critical at those times. After all where would Darwin have ended up without all those collections of birds, butterflies, turtles, etc. collected in the years prior to his arrival. So finding and cataloging new things in the cosmos certainly had its place in the history of science. It may be true that the discovery of another nebula or galaxy now and then could be interesting for some. But no newly trained astronomer is really going to spend their time looking for nebula number 1001. Unless the objects discovered are truly novel by proving the existence of something only predicted by theory, for example. And for astrophysics, the challenge is experiments mostly don't lend themselves to lab experiments as done in chemistry, biology and physics (sometimes!). Controls are challenging to set up, etc. Anyway, I'm drifting from the main topic. Alan |
16.35
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
The discovery aspect of AP is another interesting observation. Since it occupies a vanishingly small part of AP activity, using it to justify AP as a science is, I feel, rather like a small tail wagging a very large dog. Nevertheless, the new discoveries can also contribute to science. However, given how they are made, their significance are hard to determine. The recent example of the "M31 [OIII] arc" is a case in point. Technically brilliant, claims for M31 association umm.... left a little to be desired [at least to this scientist]. I am not trying to decry these new discoveries - I think they are wonderful - but if AP were a science there would be a lot more rigour about the announcement and claims for significance of new discoveries. As an almost trivial example, if new AP discoveries are to be part of scientifically accepted corpus of knowledge, why is the IAU naming protocol not followed for these objects*? Future scientists would I think find this a lot more useful than the current practice here of naming things Bloggs 1, Bloggs 2 etc. CS Brian *Alphanumeric survey descriptor + object coordinates. |
10.10
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I think the intention of the question was to have fun with it and not to discover a new philosophy or social hierarchy and engage in serious debate. In the spirit of fun, here is an alternate definition of science and art. Science, at its core, is about the necessities of life and improving it's quality. It is about finding how to provide the necessities of life in a better (effectiveness and efficiency) way. The science of geology likely started in the understanding of how to make better spearheads. The science of medicine likely started with what plant to eat to make you feel better. Engineering was required to cross a stream or make a cart in order to bring home a felled mammoth. Art is about the value of life. This value is dependent upon science, in that it is only the excess of the necessities that allows it to exist and compound. Farmers and bricklayers are allowing for art, by providing excess food and shelter for a painter (or astrophotographer for that matter) to create the art. At the end of the day - society will be judged by the art it creates. Why else are we continuing to push this rock up hill? Astronomy and other more esoteric "sciences" are really art under this new definition (other than the ability to navigate by the stars). The Hubble and JWST telescopes only exist because there is an excess of tax monies in the West to engage in the activity. In terms of life's necessities - it doesn't really add anything. In terms of the value - it adds a great deal! So under this new definition, almost all of astronomy, let alone astrophotography is clearly an art. Even the engagement of the central question is more philosophy, which itself is an art under this definition. Maybe astrophotography is a third thing - not just a blending of art and science, but a third thing that is both and yet more than simply an interpolation. My point here is that the question is seriously unanswerable, yet infinitely debatable. Just don't take it too seriously and is worthless if it isn't fun. |
|
11.41
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
David Payne: Ah, I see what this is now: A clever marketing ploy to boost membership in the Union of Concerned Scientists!  |
