On Feb 1, 10:28*am, Dawid Michalczyk wrote:

Something I was wondering about lately is how space art is perceived by
those who are knowledgeable about astronomy and space in general. How do
you perceive space art that does not accurately represent the current
astronomical knowledge? Good, bad?

I'm curious about this because my own space work is based mostly on
imagination rather than scientific knowledge of outer space. What are
your thoughts? Thanks.

Obviously, it is _preferable_ if space art is scientifically accurate.
Thus, the space art of Chesley Bonestell, for example, is well loved
because, in addition to its beauty, he was meticulous in researching
the scientific knowledge available at his time. (Some of that
knowledge, though, was imperfect as we now know.)

There are many impressive types of space art that are not strongly
dependent on scientific fact; as long as you point the lit side of any
moons towards the nearest sun, and so on, there isn't that much to get
wrong in many cases. And if you want to be the next Boris Vallejo
instead of the next Chesley Bonestell, well, that too is a path to
fame and fortune.

John Savard