Difference between revisions of "March 9, 2013"

From LPOD
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
<em>drawing by [mailto:philip.morgan@talktalk.net Phil Morgan], U.K.</em><br />
 
<em>drawing by [mailto:philip.morgan@talktalk.net Phil Morgan], U.K.</em><br />
 
<br />
 
<br />
Every time before I publish a drawing I argue with myself about it. Drawings such as Phil's classic depiction<br />
+
Every time before I publish a drawing I argue with myself about it. Drawings such as Phil's classic depiction
of Lassell above have a romantic, even avocative appeal, tying us to the only effective way before about 20-<br />
+
of Lassell above have a romantic, even avocative appeal, tying us to the only effective way before about 20-30 years ago to capture lunar details. But now even relatively small telescopes can capture CCD images that
30 years ago to capture lunar details. But now even relatively small telescopes can capture CCD images that<br />
+
show more detail, more accurately than the best drawings. Artists, and that is what astronomy sketchers are,
show more detail, more accurately than the best drawings. Artists, and that is what astronomy sketchers are,<br />
+
select what to show and perhaps without even thinking about it leave out features that aren't critical to the story
select what to show and perhaps without even thinking about it leave out features that aren't critical to the story<br />
+
they are telling with pencil, pen and ink. An [http://www.lpod.org/?m=20070213 image] of the Lassell area with similar illumination (and sadly with
they are telling with pencil, pen and ink. An [http://www.lpod.org/?m=20070213 image] of the Lassell area with similar illumination (and sadly with<br />
+
a defect of display that I haven't been able to fix) provides a more trustworthy documentation. The text I write
a defect of display that I haven't been able to fix) provides a more trustworthy documentation. The text I write<br />
+
each night for LPODs tries to explain the geologic processes displayed in an image but I wouldn't trust a drawing enough to base an interpretation on it. The fine art world faced a similar problem 100 years ago. Photography
each night for LPODs tries to explain the geologic processes displayed in an image but I wouldn't trust a draw-<br />
+
could then capture any scene more precisely than any drawing. Perhaps that was one reason why cubism and
ing enough to base an interpretation on it. The fine art world faced a similar problem 100 years ago. Photography<br />
+
other interpretive artistic styles developed. But painting persisted and today's art galleries are far more full of
could then capture any scene more precisely than any drawing. Perhaps that was one reason why cubism and<br />
+
paintings than of photographs. Paintings, and astronomical sketches, provide a unique human perspective of a
other interpretive artistic styles developed. But painting persisted and today's art galleries are far more full of<br />
+
piece of the world, or in this case another world. As an explainer of science I want a depiction of a scene that
paintings than of photographs. Paintings, and astronomical sketches, provide a unique human perspective of a<br />
+
hasn't been filtered through another brain, another perception. But when I use a drawing for an LPOD I am like
piece of the world, or in this case another world. As an explainer of science I want a depiction of a scene that<br />
+
a visitor to an art gallery, interested, perhaps even fascinated, by how another person perceives the world.
hasn't been filtered through another brain, another perception. But when I use a drawing for an LPOD I am like<br />
+
<br />
a visitor to an art gallery, interested, perhaps even fascinated, by how another person perceives the world.<br />
+
 
<br />
 
<br />
 
<em>[mailto:tychocrater@yahoo.com Chuck Wood]</em><br />
 
<em>[mailto:tychocrater@yahoo.com Chuck Wood]</em><br />

Revision as of 15:53, 14 March 2015

Perceptions

LPOD-Mar9-13.jpg
drawing by Phil Morgan, U.K.

Every time before I publish a drawing I argue with myself about it. Drawings such as Phil's classic depiction of Lassell above have a romantic, even avocative appeal, tying us to the only effective way before about 20-30 years ago to capture lunar details. But now even relatively small telescopes can capture CCD images that show more detail, more accurately than the best drawings. Artists, and that is what astronomy sketchers are, select what to show and perhaps without even thinking about it leave out features that aren't critical to the story they are telling with pencil, pen and ink. An image of the Lassell area with similar illumination (and sadly with a defect of display that I haven't been able to fix) provides a more trustworthy documentation. The text I write each night for LPODs tries to explain the geologic processes displayed in an image but I wouldn't trust a drawing enough to base an interpretation on it. The fine art world faced a similar problem 100 years ago. Photography could then capture any scene more precisely than any drawing. Perhaps that was one reason why cubism and other interpretive artistic styles developed. But painting persisted and today's art galleries are far more full of paintings than of photographs. Paintings, and astronomical sketches, provide a unique human perspective of a piece of the world, or in this case another world. As an explainer of science I want a depiction of a scene that hasn't been filtered through another brain, another perception. But when I use a drawing for an LPOD I am like a visitor to an art gallery, interested, perhaps even fascinated, by how another person perceives the world.

Chuck Wood

Technical Details
Feb 18, 2013, 18:20 to 18:45 UT. 305 Newtonian x 400.

Related Links
Rükl plate 54
21st Century Atlas chart 16.

Yesterday's LPOD: 50 Year Uncertainty

Tomorrow's LPOD: Geo Textbook



COMMENTS?

Register, Log in, and join in the comments.