Space art and knowledge

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:49:53 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Indeed, NASA does the same thing with Hubble images - most of them are
false-color, with contrast exaggerated.

Sure. The "cheat" in the case of most space art is displaying objects
with color in what is intended as a naked eye rendition. If we were
actually in one of these scenes, with a normally lit planet surface,
moons, etc, things like nearby nebulas and galaxies wouldn't show much,
if any, color. But that wouldn't make for so striking an image, so the
fiction is tolerable in most cases.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Feb 2, 2:25*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:49:53 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"

wrote:
Indeed, NASA does the same thing with Hubble images - most of them are
false-color, with contrast exaggerated.

Sure. The "cheat" in the case of most space art is displaying objects
with color in what is intended as a naked eye rendition. If we were
actually in one of these scenes, with a normally lit planet surface,
moons, etc, things like nearby nebulas and galaxies wouldn't show much,
if any, color. But that wouldn't make for so striking an image, so the
fiction is tolerable in most cases.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Mainstream science is what spendy infomercials of hype and eye-candy
is all about, as certainly it's not about sharing the best available
science or whatever the subsequent truths.

There's far more public funded science evidence that's systematically
excluded than included, especially whenever it comes down to
relatively local stuff that might actually matter.

~ BG

A couple of things..

First, why "obviously"?

Secondly, I think Dawid managed to successfully troll all these newsgroups
into viewing his webpages. :-)

He did well.



"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
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

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...

A couple of things..

First, why "obviously"?

Secondly, I think Dawid managed to successfully troll all these newsgroups
into viewing his webpages. :-)

He did well.


Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of
outrageous trolling
Or to take arms against a sea of nonsense, and by opposing, end it.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:49:53 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Indeed, NASA does the same thing with Hubble images - most of them are
false-color, with contrast exaggerated.

Sure. The "cheat" in the case of most space art is displaying objects
with color in what is intended as a naked eye rendition. If we were
actually in one of these scenes, with a normally lit planet surface,
moons, etc, things like nearby nebulas and galaxies wouldn't show much,
if any, color. But that wouldn't make for so striking an image, so the
fiction is tolerable in most cases.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Also the false coloring is used to show different bands of radiation,
like red/green/blue for three different Infrared channels,
or show different colors for hydrogen/oxygen/etc detected.
Those pictures are no fake, and show useful scientific info.
And they look nice to

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

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