Space art and knowledge
On Feb 2, 9:25*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 2, 1:32*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
Dawid Michalczyk wrote:
Hi,
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?
Depends on how it is portrayed within context and on the intent of the
artist. *Some of the more imaginitive stuff is very thought provoking,
but has little place in a science textbook. *Science textbooks,
however, aren't the only works of value.
--
Dave
Our science textbooks are absolutely chuck full of mainstream status
quo infomercials, hype and butt loads of eye-candy as is. *What parts
would you like to see changed, such as for their becoming more
informative and truthworthy?
Beats me. *I learned physics with HRK's 4th edn, which has two-color
line art diagrams and black and white photos. *How can you argue with
a textbook that uses the re-entry of MIRV-ed warheads and a B-52
dropping iron bombs as examples of dynamics problems? *It's heavy on
text and even heavier on math. *It is excellent.
--
Dave
You know what I meant. Unlike yourself, I'm not kidding around.
~ BG
|