Telescope Reviews: May Contest Entries

The rejected entry showed four sketches of solar prominences made at 30 minute intervals. The occasion was unique because Solar Forum members had agreed to make time synchronised observations to crosscheck the accuracy of different observing techniques. Many prominences change so fast that comparison of sketches and images made only minutes apart usually tells little of the accuracy of the former.

It seemed a wonderful opportunity to allow other astronomers to judge the accuracy, validity and therefore credibility of astronomical sketching as a worthwhile complement to electronic imaging. Not because the sketches were especially accurate, there were some glaring errors! But because the subject of accuracy was directly addressed.

In many ways we are sometimes seen as poor relations and not taken too seriously. It seemed an opportunity to let viewers to see and, importantly, vote on, what we sketchers can achieve - and what we fail to achieve - in accurately portraying astronomical objects. That was why it was submitted.

To allow the judgement of accuracy (and the inaccuracies!), small comparison photographs by Pete Lawrence were put at the base. For a fast changing sun there is really no other way to demonstrate and judge accuracy. I said that Pete had independently made the images. I could have added that the sketches were published on CN an hour or so before any images - but that seemed an unnecessary and perhaps distasteful protest of honesty.

Erika, as Moderator, and I have had wholly friendly exchanges about the disallowal and she has consulted other Moderators and Administartors. I’m very grateful indeed for her patience and forbearance and that the issues were treated seriously and that time was given to them. Sketchers - We cannot wish for a better moderator.

This note is not in any way a questionings or criticism of the collective judgement to reject. Not at all. I hope that the above statements are seen as purely factual, that’s the intention.

The discussions have raised issues about the nature of astronomical sketching as we practice it, its credibility and how it might best be presented to and judged by other astronomers. I hope that these issues can be reasonably mentioned and discussed in this Forum.

Astronomical sketching has a long and honourable history with Galileo and the 3rd Earl of Rosse being only two of many exemplars. The tradition has been predominantly one of careful and meticulous scientific striving for objectivity and accuracy at the eyepiece.

The essence of science is that it is based on dispassionate observation and just as important, that others are able to judge independently the accuracy of those observations. In the 21st Century we have excellent means to do that via simultaneous digital imaging. Not to use such comparisons when we present some aspects our work is an omission. It could be interpreted that we are somehow afraid to do so, that we are not confident of our drawings, that we do not take accuracy seriously. That reduces our credibility and devalues our efforts, devalues astronomical sketching.

Such comparisons are permitted in ordinary postings within the Forum. Of course. But that is not the issue. When in Contests we place our work for judgement against other forums’ digital images or even other sketches in our own, why do we seem to put a low value on accuracy as a judgement criterion? Why do we not include, where appropriate and necessary, small comparisons that will allow voters to see that we care about accuracy and are prepared to stand up and be judged on it? The comparisons will not always reflect well on our sketchwork, but they will tell of our intentions and honesty.

All the above assumes that we in the Forum, like Galileo and Rosse and others, continue to regard astronomical sketching primarily as a figurative, objective and science, as well as art, based pursuit.

In her careful comments on the Contest entry Erika has said:

“Astronomical sketching comes in many forms. There is realism, impressionism, and astronomical art, and dare I say everything in between. Impressionism created at the eyepiece can be just as effective because it invokes the "feel" of the object as seen in the observer's eyes. Of course those that do realism strive for the accuracy of the object itself. Some create sketches digitally based on their pencil sketches and notes.”

“And with regards to the contest, clearly impressionism would be just as valid as realism if it were an observation sketch and is the object as seen through the observer's eyes.”

“So with this in mind, validity for a sketcher's work should be on their work alone”

With due respect to Erika (and honestly Erika these comments are a discourse about the nature of astronomical sketching not criticism of individuals nor a criticism of forum Moderation), this interpretation is a relativist one. It sets little or no more store on objectivity, accuracy and external validation than does fantasy and space art. By those tenets ‘all is permitted’ and if all things are not equally ‘valid’ they are certainly much of a muchness and subject to individual whims.

How is another astronomer when seeing our sketches, particularly solar ones, to know whether it is a genuine attempt to figuratively record nature or a work of fiction or emotive interpretation when these are our proclaimed values? How can they take us seriously?

Of course other interpretations of astronomical subjects have a place in art. But in all humility, that place has to be well defined and viewers need to know where they, the artist and the forum stand when work is offered.

We are an astronomical community. Astronomical sketching is astronomy. Astronomy is one of the physical sciences. Science is based on careful and dispassionate observation of nature - - Not fantasy, not space art, not impressionist or emotive interpretations. And specifying that they be made at an eyepiece does not change that. To treat astronomical sketching as other than objective striving for accurate portrayal and allowing validation by others against images is to devalue it, devalue astronomy and deny the long heritage of scientific drawing and recording that we belong to and are proud of.

To ask therefore what values we have for our astronomical sketching and contests - to ask what Galileo and the Earl of Rosse would think of us seem legitimate questions that we be should be permitted to put to ourselves and discuss within the Forum.

--------------------
Les
Atmospheric Optics
TiltingSun