Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
Jeremy Perez
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/12/04
Posts: 1930
Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
|
|
It seems like the methods and styles of astronomical sketches have been on people's minds lately. I think about this from time to time too, and wanted to share a few of my opinions on the subject. I tend to come at this from a deep sky angle, but I think it applies just as well to Lunar, Solar, and planetary sketching. Let me know what you think.
So, there are probably as many subtle intents and methods for sketching as there are people who do this. One of the things that's going to determine how somebody sketches an object is their actual intent for doing the sketch in the first place. Here are a few that come to mind:
Improving your observing
This one intent alone makes sketching an incredibly beneficial process. It's why I got started, and it's still a key reason I do it today. The great thing about this one goal is that your sketches don't need to look gorgeous, your stars can look like boomerangs, your sketch circle can be shaped like a broken egg, and you can have smears all over it and still get the full benefit of becoming a better observer. I've got a bunch of earlier drawings that look like this, and I'm not embarrassed about their quality. They fulfilled their purpose. You can see several of them in the Messier gallery at my site. However, using sketching as an observing tool is just one reason why somebody may choose to draw an object; and these other intents are where the variety of sketching styles begin to blossom.
Providing a personal record
I'm pretty sure that most observers who sketch to improve their observing end up filing those drawings away to browse another day. It can be really enjoyable to look back on old observations and relive the moment--to be reminded of what made that observation unique or interesting. Since you are the only one who looks at these records, there is no need to refine them. However, some may decide that they want to work on their technique so that the record evokes the observation more accurately. Here is where a whole spectrum of possibilities open up...but no one else has to know how you render them, unless you dabble in some of these other goals...
Comparing observing details with others
An eyepiece drawing can be a great way to describe an object and discuss the details with others. Since this is a practical consideration, there's really no need for the drawing to be 'attractive'. However, putting a bit more care into the craftsmanship of the sketch does help convey the information more accurately to your audience. You may take more care that the stars are round, that brighter stars are bigger, that you carefully describe extended objects or unresolved stars with shading or contour lines.
Conveying the appearance of the eyepiece view
Conveying the distinct attributes of an object begs for attention to detail. However, if you want to try and show how it actually looked to you through the eyepiece, you are presented with a variety of challenges. Do you convey the image in negative or positive format? If you go with the positive view, how do you convey a black sky with white stars? How do you convey that amazing contrast between a very bright star and the fainter stars in which it swims? How do you deal with the grainy mist of a globular cluster? What about any color you see? Can you convey a very faint object in a way that your audience can appreciate how difficult it was and still actually see it?
Anyone who wants to convey their observation this way is going to have to make choices about these and other questions. Some choices will be based on a personal preference, others will be decided by what that person feels capable of doing. Some may feel that since it isn't possible to truly evoke the eyepiece view, there's no point in trying to go there. That's a respectable approach--but it's not the only one. One thing is for sure, if you choose to share this view with others, some people are going to like it, and some people aren't. Some might even downright disapprove of the choices you've made. There's really nothing you can do about that. If somebody's opinion can help you improve, great! If it's not helpful, or simply has no application to your style of illustration, you just have to do your best to let it roll off.
Artistic inspiration and expression
I think for many of us, viewing pieces of the universe through the eyepiece, or an assisted video device, or just the naked eye, is a moving experience. So, it makes sense to me that the artistically inclined would at times try to express those experiences in a way that goes beyond a technical drawing. I think an encyclopedia's worth of information would be needed to cover all the angles and interpretations of a topic like this. I will say that I think there is a continuum that runs from the driest technical drawings all the way to the most embellished works of art. At some point, to a majority of people, the image will no longer be considered an observational drawing or illustration, but there is no way that I would feel qualified to drop a boundary in the 'correct' spot somewhere in the muddy part of that spectrum.
Bill Ferris brought up the topic about Realism and Impressionism over three years ago. I think it's a great point to make. Even if someone tries to be extremely technical with a drawing, there are still liberties that are taken--such as making bright stars bolder, or trying to shade an extended object whose range of brightness in the eyepiece has no hope of being portrayed the same way on a sheet of paper.
Other intents?
I'm sure there are other reasons people spend time sketching what they see out there. Do you have any that I haven't attempted to cover above?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sketching Methods
The methods you use to produce a sketch are going to depend on your personal tastes and your goals, and if you're showing it to others: who your audience is.
Some key methods I've observed are:
- Generating the complete hand drawn sketch in the field with no post-edits
- Producing a rough sketch in the field and re-drawing a refined version later
- Creating a hand drawn sketch, scanning it, and then using digital tools to clean it up, add color and so on.
- Creating a rough sketch in the field, and then re-creating it completely with digital tools later
- Using video assisted viewing to create a sketch in any of those ways
- Sketching onto a pre-printed star field so the observer can concentrate on an extended object rather than the star field
A point has been made before that an un-edited, un-refined field drawing is the only one that could truly be called a 'sketch'. Sometimes I like hard labels, and sometimes I don't. I'm somewhat torn by this one. I think there's a good argument to be made that an unmodified drawing created in the field is what a 'sketch' really is. Cleaned up, redrawn observations might be better called 'illustrations'. The problem is that in amateur astronomy, the term illustration (in my mind) carries the baggage of sounding 'conceptual' in nature and might lead to the impression that the image is not the result of a specific, detailed observation. That's a tough one. (please don't let tempers flare up on discussing this one)
Regarding the use of a pre-printed star field, I know I've benefited from this technique on several occasions when sketching comets. When a comet is a twilight-scraper, it can really aid the amount of time you spend actually observing the comet before it disappears, rather than plotting field stars. Others have found the technique useful for any number of objects, when time under a dark sky is rare and precious. I think it's great. Others wouldn't touch that method with a ten foot pole. I think it's important though that the observer note this method was used if they are sharing the sketch with others.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, those are my thoughts. What do you think?
--------------------
Orion SVP 6LT (6" f/8 Newt) || Orion XT8 (8" f/5.9 Dob) || 15x70 Oberwerk Binoculars || Coronado PST
The Belt Of Venus || Sketch Gallery || Sketching Resources || Astro-Photo Gallery
|
perfessor
sage
Reged: 12/30/07
Posts: 499
Loc: Northern Illinois
|
|
My main intents are three that you mentioned: Improving the observational experience; creating a record; and conveying a sense of the eyepiece view.
My first efforts (I guess I ought to post one in the other thread) were primarily for record-keeping: What was I looking at, what did I see, etc. As I began to grasp more details, I struggled with putting them to paper, since I couldn't adequately describe them with words. The details kind of reached a critical mass, and the sketches bcame more realistic.
I'm not at all trying to be artistic - I do best if I avoid trying to draw "something", and just concentrate on details and let the drawing emerge.
Finally, people who have never looked through an eyepiece, have no idea why I have a cannon in my living room. It helps to be able to show them a reasonably realistic drawing.
--------------------
Tom
"Don't always know what I'm talkin about"
8" f/7
|
 WadeVC
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/02/05
Posts: 2831
Loc: Lodi, California,
|
|
Quote:
So, those are my thoughts. What do you think?
I'll tell ya' what I think...I think I miss seeing your mug around here is what I think! 
Seriously though Jeremy, you helped guide me (and others) through our beginning sketches and always offered encouragement along the way.
A very well-written post that will hopefully help encourage others to pick up a pencil and piece of paper (or whatever their medium of choice) and give sketching at the EP a try.
--------------------
Orion XTi10 f/4.7
Orion XTi8 f/5.9
Meade NGC 70mm f/10
Orion UltraView 10x50 Wide-Angle Binoculars
My Sketch Gallery
My Astronomy Blog
A wise man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can from a mountain top.
|
CarlosEH
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/19/05
Posts: 4142
Loc: Pembroke Pines, Broward County...
|
|
Jeremy,
Thank you for posting a very well thought out and informative subject matter. The experienced observer may look at your headings and say "I agree with that" (or not), but the newcomer may not understand what keeps us going and why we post our observations on this forum. I will address your topics individually;
Improving Your Observing: Whereas it is a very worthwhile goal to make an observation as accurate (realistic) as possible this is not required of every rendering depending upon the mood of the scene/subject being recorded. I started rendering the Moon and planets at the age of eight years old (unforunately I no longer have those renderings). My renderings, at a younger age, were for my own satisfaction and to show my family and friends what I was doing with my telescope (a 60 mm Jason Empire refractor). My observations became more detailed when I obtained my classic Celestron 8-inch SCT (vintage 1975) which had good optics. I am glad to have used the smaller refractor before using my C8 as it forced me to learn the sky well and make the most of my instrument. I have referred to my earlier observations and compared them to my current ones and have been happy to note a significant improvement in recording detail over the Moon and planets. Every observation I make is a learning experience for me no matter how many times I have observed the object.
Providing a Personal Record: As stated above I have kept my old observations to remind me what I had noted at the time as well as to be able to compare to future observations. It is very motivating to see "simple sketches" made early on and compare them to one's more complex observations made at the present time.
Comparing Observing Details with Others: The purpose of this is not a contest as to who can produce a more realistic observation, but instead to learn how others observe different objects and what techniques are used. I have learned how to look at objects from a different perspective (while using a new media/technique) from relative newcomers to observing and sketching. No one is a true master of all techniques and cannot learn something from another person.
Conveying the Appearance of the Eyepiece View: Many of us on this forum attempt (quite well done by many observers) to convey the appearance of an object in the eyepiece field but this is not an easy feat as you point out. The observer does have to make choices in how best to depict what was observed, as you point out. I applaud the excellent "eyepiece field renderings" posted on this forum by all members.
Artistic Inspiration and Expression: I feel that an observer should be allowed to use any available media at their disposal in rendering a subject. This includes classic (e.g. graphite, pastel, watercolor, etc.) and digital (e.g. software (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc.)) media. I do not feel that making renderings using a computer is "cheating." The observer produces the final product and not the computer. The ability to render a subject accurately (realistically) is appreciated but an "impressionistic" rendering is also attractive when clearly stated as such.
Sketching Methods: Your points are well defined on what methods are available to the observer. No one technique is superior to the other. I do not consider any of the methods described as a way of "cheating" as long as the observer states what technique was employed in making the observation.
The bottom line is for us all to HAVE FUN AND SHARE OUR OBSERVATIONS. This forum's purpose is not the critique of anyone's skill level or technique. I consider myself fortunate to have made so many friends on this forum. I have become a better observer because of it. Thank you all for your friendship and experience.
Carlos
--------------------
|
starquake
member
Reged: 02/02/08
Posts: 172
Loc: Nádasdladány
|
|
I'll put my opinion simple: Sketching is the most fun you can have with your clothes on. [originally said by Bill Cosby (and not about sketching)]
--------------------
"At night astronomers agree." /Matthew Prior/
"Astronomers, like burglars and jazz musicians, operate best at night." /Miles Kington/
10x50, 114x900, 300x1500
My astronomical sketches: Graphite Galaxy
Don't take my words too seriously, I might be wrong. And sorry for my English.
|
cildarith
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 2357
Loc: San Diego, CA
|
|
Well said, Jeremy! I even agree with most of it... 
--------------------
Eric
6" f/6 Parks Newtonian
10x50 Bushnell Binocs
CN Sketch Gallery||MinDat Mineral Gallery
|
rodelaet
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/06
Posts: 3063
Loc: 50°56' N - 4°58' E (Belgium)
|
|
Jeremy and Carlos,
Respect! 
--------------------
Rony
My Astronomical Sketches
My Binocular Sketches
Callibrate your Monitor with this little strip.
|
Jeremy Perez
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/12/04
Posts: 1930
Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
|
|
Tom, thanks for sharing your motivation. I really appreciate your last couple sentences about helping people appreciate why you have a cannon in your living room. 
Wade, I wish I could contribute more. I do check in regularly and really enjoy all the sketches everybody shares! A few projects have been keeping my astronomy-time-budget pretty maxed out lately. That might ease up a bit in the next couple months. I do hope that people will continue to try sketching their observations, regardless of their technical skill or motivation. Thanks for the encouraging thoughts.
Carlos, thanks for your thoughtful responses. I agree that when comparing observations with others, it can be an excellent learning experience for not only the techniques used when sketching, but looking for even more detail in an object you've already observed and sketched.
Nicely adapted sentiment, Ferenc!
Thanks, Eric...it was the part about the ten foot pole that kept you from agreeing with all of it wasn't it?
I knew I should've said twenty foot pole...
Thanks, Rony
--------------------
Orion SVP 6LT (6" f/8 Newt) || Orion XT8 (8" f/5.9 Dob) || 15x70 Oberwerk Binoculars || Coronado PST
The Belt Of Venus || Sketch Gallery || Sketching Resources || Astro-Photo Gallery
|
markseibold
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/19/08
Posts: 1086
Loc: Portland Oregon
|
|
Jeremy and Carlos
You have both covered this, I think, in its entirety and in the most professional and commendable way. I was quite interested in the old post from Bill in 2005 about impressionism and realism, concerned that many would not hyperlink to it in Jeremy’s new post, so I commented on it to compliment Bill on this also, bringing the old post up to the current page again. I think he too made some excellent comments about art as sketching. I would hope that new-comers would take a minute to read it. The part about Steve O’Meara, the S&T writer-artist who does impressionistic and whimsical aesthetic sketches. I met O’Meara at the annual large Oregon Star Party in the central Oregon desert a few years ago. I did not know then that he was an astronomy sketch artist, only a writer for S&T; until I saw him featured in Timothy Ferris’ Seeing in the Dark, aired by PBS last fall, repeated many times now on PBS TV. There is a small segment in that show where O’Meara is demonstrating his artwork from the eyepiece observation. New sketchers may want to rent this DVD and watch it. OMeara’s passion for astronomy sketching and art is quite evident and infectious to the audience.
I also agree with most of what Tom said here about the reasons to document accurately and keep a permanent log. The process that through doing this sketching that it helps us to remember what we see. This is the main reason that many books explain why we should do it. Carlos is absolutely right on this account. We know this well as sketch artists, but it is difficult to get the general pubic to think that hey are not being judged in committing to a masterpiece painting. That is a stigma that society places upon us. Also where Tom says about most people who have never looked through a telescope would not know what we see. This is of course why I have done so many thousands of hours of community service astronomy in a Dobson style for the past 10 years. I think it is important to understand that we cannot possibly communicate this enough to others who have never experienced it. I know I tend to ramble about that a little here at times but I can assure you that it is not about me. It is about trying to influence other astronomers to join in participating in this sidewalk astronomy whenever possible. I know it is not for everyone but as Dobson says in that PBS show, The Astronomers c1993, “Now if there were a few thousand astronomers in this world that would take their telescopes out to allow all the world to see what there is to see ‘ . . . . they would finally see.
I was hoping to see other members here comment where they mentioned before that they were sketching at a large star party and how this influences their work or that it influenced others to try it. As I was doing the same under the last Persieds shower at a local large public star party here outside of Portland Oregon last month. Many people who saw my astronomy sketching were not aware of the process through the eyepiece, even though some were artists, they had never looked at the moon through a telescope. Some thought that my sketches were photographs from a short distance away until they came closer. So I think demonstrating this for the public is something to consider if Jeremy and Carlos had not mentioned it. You as sketching artists will be pleased to see the first time public responses. In turn you can consider that you have shared this and thus have taught new found students. In effect we all become teachers of this great process when we share it with others.
Tom also says that he tries not to do art while sketching. I am perplexed by this attitude of some here as if the word artist is like being labeled as a leper or that it might be construed as un-scientific. To think if someone gets artistic as if it is some sort of sin. I apologize if came across to aggravate some to comment with words like arrogant and elitist towards artists. This becomes almost like politicians mud-slinging. I know that Tom is not using those words, but I would like to convey that there is nothing wrong with being artistic. Language at times may not have the ability to transcend the ultimate enlightenment of being labeled “an artist”. Words cannot simply duplicate what an artwork or sketch-work can convey in a few seconds glance to the new observer of the artwork for the first time, as those who gain experience doing this know it quite well. Otherwise we’d all be writing words here only and there would be no visual art!
I hope to see that any new-comer is welcomed here in their new found hobby and past time in astronomy sketch art and not to fear to be artistic in any way. At one time in the recent modern world the title of artist was held in the highest esteem of all. Yes, even beyond scientist.
I would highly recommend that those new to sketching that have questions about the artistic and astronomy sketching process, to look at some outside resources. One of course is the great book published by those here at CN and initiated by Rich Handy, including works and methods by many others here: Astronomical Sketching- A Step by Step c2007. Another excellent source I have mentioned before is Leonard Shlain’s book: Art & Physics – Parallel Visions In Space, Time & Light. This is more a philosophical and art and science historical view than a technical step by step to sketching but definitely something to learn from and think about the artistic process and scientific method. Shlain is highly commended for this book. He is a medical doctor, yet an award winning writer. He covers everything to the last details in history, the art and science renaissance in the baroque era, Einstein, the media, politics, modern art and he publics view and interpretation, how some of Isaac Newton’s largest influences on his theories were due to his fondness of great artists paintings. Photography and technology as related to art and science and astronomy, etc. He covers all of the great artists, scientists, philosophers and the relation of all this to the nth’ degree as to how they compliment one-another.
I thank all of you for your selfless contributions and well thought out instruction here to inspire new observational astronomy sketch artists.
I look forward with great enthusiasm and to promote to see new astronomy sketch artists here soon in CN.
-Mark
Edited by markseibold (09/24/08 06:48 PM)
|
perfessor
sage
Reged: 12/30/07
Posts: 499
Loc: Northern Illinois
|
|
Quote:
Tom also says that he tries not to do art while sketching. I am perplexed by this attitude of some here as if the word artist is like being labeled as a leper or that it might be construed as un-scientific.
No, no, no - I must not have explained myself well. I have great admiration for your work, Mark, and others who render their subjects so well.
I was referring, perhaps clumsily, to the fact that striving to create art actually hinders the process for me. I do better by emptying the mind, and simply drawing what I see. Is that not what you do? In any case, in no way do I disparage anyone else's methods or results.
I am really very much a rookie at all this - I have no idea how others do it. In an earlier thread, I wrote about realizing, for the first time, the difference between what the brain sees, and what the eye sees. If I try to draw from the "brain", I get garbage. So I draw from the eye.
There is no "art" in the eye - the eye only sees light and shadow and lines. Everything else - including "art" - is in the brain. But I try to keep the brain out of it until I'm done drawing.
And by the way, I make no pretense of doing "science" either.
Does any of that make sense?
--------------------
Tom
"Don't always know what I'm talkin about"
8" f/7
|
cildarith
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 2357
Loc: San Diego, CA
|
|
The use of the term "art" in regards to astronomical sketching is, in my opinion, misplaced for two related reasons.
First, it gives the impression to those without artistic talent that they can't participate or derive the clear benefits to the observer that Jeremy outlines above.
Second, let's be honest here, with the possible exception of certain lunar observations, artistic talent is simply not required to pursue astronomical sketching. As a deep-sky observer I work with polka dots and smudges - how "artistic" is that?. Frankly, stick figures are more challenging.
In my opinion, technical accuracy should take a higher precedent than artistic flare.
YMMV. And probably does...
--------------------
Eric
6" f/6 Parks Newtonian
10x50 Bushnell Binocs
CN Sketch Gallery||MinDat Mineral Gallery
|
markseibold
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/19/08
Posts: 1086
Loc: Portland Oregon
|
|
Tom
Thanks for clearing that up. I just keep getting the idea from a few here, that the artist label is not welcomed for some reason. I have always thought that your professionalism and artful sketching is most admirable here in the CN sketching forums. There seems to be a tension that if one is looked at as an accomplished professional artist that they may be envied with some sort of jealousy and resentment by much of our society and that that is not desired by some.
It is an oxy-moron isn't it? As artists, we strive for some acceptance, in practice at getting better, and then one day we are attacked for being too good. I think philosophers have discussed this as it applies to many things in life.
I have never wanted to convey that but possibly did accidentally.
Professing to become wise through the concerted artistic process, I have become a fool through my failed scientific methods . . . 
Mark
My Gallery>
http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/showgallery.php?ppuser=37924&cat=500
Edited by markseibold (09/24/08 07:41 PM)
|
Jeremy Perez
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/12/04
Posts: 1930
Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
|
|
Really good points, Mark, Tom and Eric. Thanks for taking the time to share them.
Doing public outreach with our telescopes can be very rewarding. It's great to get people to check out the awesome sights that they otherwise might never glimpse. And maybe it stirs a passion in a few.
Public outreach sketching is a little different situation. You need an audience that has got a little more time on their hands than the usual drive-by public viewing, as well as a presenter that can try to punch through some 21st century attention-deficit-disorder. Star parties, as you mentioned, seem like they would be a good place. And Roland and Linda have prepared a very thorough sketching workshop for their audience. Next week I'm making an astronomical sketching presentation at Lowell Observatory during the Flagstaff Festival of Science. It's a daytime auditorium multimedia presentation, but I'll have pencils, blending stumps and some pre-made templates on Index cardstock for the audience to practice on. It's fun--I'm getting a little case of the nerves leading up to it--but it's rewarding to interact and respond to people's reactions and questions.
As far as the occasional flinching that occurs when the word 'artist' is used, I think a lot boils down to how someone defines 'art', 'artist', or 'artistic'.
A couple reason's come to mind that an astronomical sketcher might not care for that label. One is that many people (in my experience) associate 'artist' or 'artistic' with something that is almost painfully out of their league, and using those terms can shut them down before they give it a try. The other reason is that I think many would rather their drawings be considered on practical merit rather than artistic. I think it all comes down to how people define 'artist' and 'artistic', and some of those definitions, bring up things they don't like. That's a very difficult barrier to negotiate, particularly if you have a broader view of the words than someone else does. Personally, I try to avoid that by using other terms like 'technique' and 'craftsmanship' and the slightly edgy 'aesthetic' (when describing the beauty perceived through the eyepiece and the attempt some may make to faithfully recreate that).
However, although I typically avoid actually saying it, I do believe their is an 'art' to sketching just as I think there's an art to having a conversation or drinking a cold beverage without the ice sloshing all over my face*. But that's because I'm referring to a usage I've grown up with: art (n) - 1. skill acquired by experience, study, or observation (the art of making friends). 2a. 2 a: a branch of learning. 3. an occupation requiring knowledge or skill (the art of organ building). The word 'skill' might even raise some alarms, but there's even a tiny bit of skill involved in picking up a pencil or pen and not stabbing the other hand with it. The fact that a lot of us come here for inspiration and to improve their own methods says to me that people are refining their skill by experience, study and observation.
Still, when the word art is used, I think that many tend to think of this definition - produced as an artistic effort or for decorative purposes (an art film) (art dolls) (art music)
Anyway, as I mentioned, I think haggling over that definition is more work than I have a passion for, so this is probably one of the rare moments when I'll bring it up.
*Not saying I've mastered any of those.
--------------------
Orion SVP 6LT (6" f/8 Newt) || Orion XT8 (8" f/5.9 Dob) || 15x70 Oberwerk Binoculars || Coronado PST
The Belt Of Venus || Sketch Gallery || Sketching Resources || Astro-Photo Gallery
Edited by Jeremy Perez (09/24/08 09:19 PM)
|
markseibold
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/19/08
Posts: 1086
Loc: Portland Oregon
|
|
Quote:
The use of the term "art" in regards to astronomical sketching is, in my opinion, misplaced for two related reasons.
First, it gives the impression to those without artistic talent that they can't participate or derive the clear benefits to the observer that Jeremy outlines above.
Second, let's be honest here, with the possible exception of certain lunar observations, artistic talent is simply not required to pursue astronomical sketching. As a deep-sky observer I work with polka dots and smudges - how "artistic" is that?. Frankly, stick figures are more challenging.
In my opinion, technical accuracy should take a higher precedent than artistic flare.
YMMV. And probably does...
Eric
You raise some interesting ideas here. The term "artistic talent" is but a mere opinion of means to measure. I would enter the Heisenberg Principle of uncertainty here. I agree with you that this forum is titled as sketching and not art. Yet I would not want to discourage that a new sketcher might want to develop into a great artist too.  If even accidentally through the undeniable process as it takes place while sketching. Try to define the word art or its process. Then look it up; you'll be shocked at the varied human processes involved. (see links below.)
Modern minimalist art sometimes uses no more than polka dots and smudges of pant on canvas. Look no further than some of Picasso's latter paintings (history books list him as the greatest artist of the 20th century, now to possibly become Warhol, yet most of the general non-artistic public does not understand why (these artists conveyed for others to learn from) or Kandinsky's colored circles overlapped appear as photorealistic planets in space in some of his works (creator of the Bauhaus School in early 20th century Germany.) Pollock’s drip paintings of the Abstract Impressionistic Era of the 1950's could be said to look as if stick-like figures. Yet at times they appear as looking tough a nebulous outer space with overlapping galaxy dust lanes. You might be making million dollar art with smudges and stick lines and not aware of it.
Technical accuracy food for thought by one could be artistic poison for another and vise versa. Mere philosophical words. Both, the scientific method and artistic process are engaged simultaneously in astronomy sketching. Whether you do Deep Sky Objects, a meteor streaking across the sky in motion, a solar prominence as seen through an h-alpha filtered telescope, the planets or the moons surface; it is all concerted artistic process joined to scientific methods of empirical observation. And there is always room to improve ones skills; hence why we continue the process and learn from it. I have never heard anyone say that they spent years sketching and just got worse as they went along. Any takers for that one here? I’ll admit, I thought I made some great works some time ago, then followed with a few recent blunders on a bad day. That is life.
I think you could improve on your artistic ability if so desired. All humans can; they just 'think' they can't and easily say so. We always hear it from the first time new-comers. They honestly admit that they cannot sketch or draw until they begin to really take the time to try. I would invite to encourage you. As Tom says, his brain gets in the way; or I say that my hands get in the way. It has been said that we are all born artists. The mere words of making thousands of years of great visual art to be disclaimed as not able to be technically accurate but merely reduced from being a real and necessary human process has been a debate for as long.
I look forward to seeing your artfully executed deep sky renderings soon, Eric.
I would like to eventually see CN members enter a chapter on Astronomical Sketching into the Wikipedia. I think it could draw a new mass world interest.
With respect,
Mark
*Art defined from the Latin is: "Skill or Craft". Here is some interesting philosophical food for thought about defining what art is >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classificatory_disputes_about_art
*Sketch:
A sketch (from Ancient Greek σχέδιος - schedios, “‘made suddenly, off-hand’”, from σχεδιάζω - schediazo, “‘to do a thing off-hand’”) is a rapidly executed freehand drawing that is not intended as a finished work, often consisting of a multitude of overlapping lines. Taken from >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketch_(drawing)
|
markseibold
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/19/08
Posts: 1086
Loc: Portland Oregon
|
|
Jeremy
Sorry I was off timing here and posted just after you in my definitions of art vs sketching and hyperlinks. As I plan a cross country road trip, I would enjoy meeting up with you in Flagstaff to learn from a master and relate to the publics responses but my timing may just miss. I was there at the Lowell Observatory on a Southwest US road trip with my wife in May 2003 for a brief tour of the facility.
-Mark
|
frank5817
Post Laureate
Reged: 06/13/06
Posts: 4089
Loc: Illinois
|
|
Jeremy,
I think you have pretty well covered it. I can say that the biggest joy I receive from this sketching forum is to examine the sketches of others with some care and scrutiny to see what they were trying to convey to all of us. And if it is something I have observed, did they capture it the way I see it or have I been missing something in my own observing. This can be a strong motivation to re-observe old friends in the heavens or track down new targets. Also when you examine a posted sketch you can see into that person's mind-eye a little and it conveys something about them that is instant and interesting. Some here sketch and during the process dot their "i's" and cross their "t's" get all the photons on the medium as faithfully as they see it creating a masterful work of observing beauty and often near perfection. We all know what the camera can do in capturing the heavens, but some of the deep sky sketchers here can show all of us what the eye at the eyepiece can really, really see. Other sketchers have strong passion for the beauty of what they see and they capture the beauty without necessarily capturing a lot of details and I consider these equal to the others. Those new to sketching can go either direction or combine elements of both as they sketch and sketch and sketch some more as practice is necessary and good for the soul. The truth about sketching is: it is fun to do; it eventually becomes most rewarding; it is a great way to spend free time; other folks really do want to see your little window on the universe; it certainly does make you a better observer; if you are satisfied with the sketches you create others will be also. If you can see and hold a pencil you can start drawing at the eyepiece on the next clear evening.
We all look at the same universe. We only see the light or lack of it, but when we try to capture what we see and share it with others we are performing a truly human social function. Our methods and media differ and I celebrate all those marvelous differences. Individuality and style can be expressed in a single simple sketch. The whole process is a great learning experience.
Frank
--------------------
my gallery
|
Erix
Toad Lily
Reged: 12/25/04
Posts: 22358
Loc: Ohio, USA
|
|
Quote:
I look forward to seeing your artfully executed deep sky renderings soon, Eric.
Mark, if you haven't already, you should look at Eric's CN gallery. The link is in his sig line. It's some of the best astro sketching I've ever seen.
Along these lines, I think perhaps there might be some confusion because of the astro art forum and how that is different from the sketching forum. I've exhausted myself trying to explain it so won't bother touching that topic again.
There is nothing wrong with those of us that wish to differentiate our "sketching" from "art". My main purpose for sketching is not to have a beautiful artful rendering. Good or bad, it is to help me study the object and record my findings at that given time.
Hardly any of my sketches, and I've got probably over a thousand astro sketches or more now, are pretty pictures. They've all got notes scribbled all over them, stray markings, areas crossed out where I made mistakes and didn't want to erase the stars and ruin the paper, etc, etc. But each one is special to me and I've learned from that particular observing session while sketching the objects.
--------------------
Erika
Automatic doors make me feel like a Jedi.
Zhumell 16", 10" LX200 Classic,Orion ED80, ETX70-AT, DS Maxscope 60mm
My CN Gallery * 2007 July - tracking NOAA10963
|
rolandlinda3
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/24/06
Posts: 2233
Loc: Crozet VA 22932
|
|
Nice post Jeremy...and agree with your points. I take note of your note for the author to note on his sketch or the related thread what has been done. I think that is important since any combination of techniques can be combined. Personally, we keep the sketches raw--other than scanning and resizing, but do nothing to increase/decrease contrast/color/brightness or introduce any digital techniques of enhancement. If we did, we would list what we did. In today's world of advanced digital techniques, it is relatively common to alter a scene so that what we see in various kinds of media is no longer what is really seen. Hence, I take the view that anything that alters a raw sketch should be noted.
Roland
--------------------
Roland
Sketches in members galleries: rolandlinda3
Inspirational stories/sketches at:
www.christworksministries.org
|
markseibold
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/19/08
Posts: 1086
Loc: Portland Oregon
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I look forward to seeing your artfully executed deep sky renderings soon, Eric.
Mark, if you haven't already, you should look at Eric's CN gallery. The link is in his sig line. It's some of the best astro sketching I've ever seen. Quote:
Erika - Thanks, I admit I must have missed Eric's link to his gallery. Also, I fail to get to the galleries if they are not linked in members messages. I’ll look at his gallery in a few minutes and comment to him. Thanks again, -Mark
Quote:
Along these lines, I think perhaps there might be some confusion because of the astro art forum and how that is different from the sketching forum. I've exhausted myself trying to explain it so won't bother touching that topic again. Quote:
Yes, I understand the division now of the art forum and the sketching forum but I was hoping to see that old post from you and Les because I thought it was stated in the sketching forum rules that we are not go inside later and polish up a sketch away from the initial observation. Many newcomers are entering here now to ask if this is OK. I understood in the past that it was not. You know that I added things like my hands to the periphery, but I never touch the central object when away from the eyepiece during real time observation with the exception of my early solar pastels seen in Spaceweather.com as all know now to be strange abstract impressions. They did also include accrate images o the solar surface within the same works. I know that Les was emphatic about discussions of this question to embellish and make impressions later, away from the eyepiece.
-M
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with those of us that wish to differentiate our "sketching" from "art". My main purpose for sketching is not to have a beautiful artful rendering. Good or bad, it is to help me study the object and record my findings at that given time.
Quote:
I agree, as I do the same, yet mine become multi-faceted as both accurate renderings and artwork, possibly even abstract impressions in separate portions of the work. ie; adding the hands later, which I now limit or completely abstain from in my lunar sketches.
Quote:
Hardly any of my sketches, and I've got probably over a thousand astro sketches or more now, are pretty pictures. They've all got notes scribbled all over them, stray markings, areas crossed out where I made mistakes and didn't want to erase the stars and ruin the paper, etc, etc. But each one is special to me and I've learned from that particular observing session while sketching the objects. Quote:
Erika-
I just finally saw the book last night as it came into a store where I placed an order some days ago. I must say, I commend all of you with the highest regards and respects that contributed to it. It is a must to see this book for anyone, whether professional or amateur who might want to venture into astronomical sketching. There is so much to learn from it. I think it should be stressed and mentioned more here in the sketching forum titles. An ad possibly for it, say?
To the point of your statement above about your sketches not being pretty art, I think your chapter on sketching a lunar crater with much detail in charcoal, became a beautiful finished work of “art” as you show each step by step as to how to achieve that quality. You may not think it is a "pretty piece of art", but I would guess that the general readers of the book would see it as such. A very pretty piece of scientific artwork indeed and you should be proud of this work. Everyone here should see this book. Rich Handy's introduction will infect even those who I believe are least interested in experiencing the artistic process or say afraid of accidentally achieving it, with immediately seeing the large crater drawings he shows in a step by step process in a later chapter.
These works like Rich's are going well beyond simple sketching. I know the process well, so I wanted to convey a long answer to an old message that Wade brought up today from a gentleman named Brian who says that it takes "a LOT of time" to do sketches as if there is no time to do this, so he makes audio recordings to add to the drawings later. I do not think that that is the same process that we are conveying here. I would not want the new generation to think that there is no time to experience the entire process to complete a great sketch rendering of say most of the moons surface, even one crater or all of the eye-visible stars of M13 through the eyepiece in the maybe 2 or 3 hours that it should take at the eyepiece. Heck! Some people will watch the same reruns of TV shows over and over for many hours, learning and experiencing really nothing but they will not take an hour at the eyepiece on a beautiful evening to make a sketch that they could preserve that would influence and teach others for years to come because “it takes a LOT of time” ?
I believe we need to tell the world to slow down and take the time that is truly available to experience this process to its fullest.
-Mark
|
markseibold
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/19/08
Posts: 1086
Loc: Portland Oregon
|
|
Quote:
In today's world of advanced digital techniques, it is relatively common to alter a scene so that what we see in various kinds of media is no longer what is really seen. Hence, I take the view that anything that alters a raw sketch should be noted.
Roland
Roland
I would like to champion what you stated here. As this manipulative process and missuse of technology is now in the courtrooms with much in argument for the past several years. It is out of control. The media is also guilty of much of it as much as non-artists wanna-bees. The internet is littered with images that are no longer considered under the definition of real artistic process. Clip art litters the internet everywhere in useless memory.
This is why when my art appeared in Spaceweather, it shocked people who were jaded and drained on only previous sterile digital images for so long, as I was told.
I know I will take more heat for discusing "art". If others want to use name calling such as elitist or arrogance against real art, let them wallow in their cold inhumane computer world. Ask them to blow a true glasswork of art withought a 3,000 degree oven inside their ipods ??? 
Ask those who have never looked at the surface of the sun through an h-alpha for thousands of hours.
-Mark
|
|
2 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Charlie Hein, cildarith
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1040
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 