Re: [Utah-astronomy] How red is Mars, anyway?
Guy, judging from the smileys, I'm guessing that your remark is tongue-in-cheek. As a formally trained painter, I can comment on the piece further. The painting is somewhat stylized and impressionistic, obviously not an intended work of realism. Joe's question is thus a bit naive, from an artistic standpoint, but legitimate from a scientific viewpoint. We are a visually-oriented species- but we often take images as an exact representation of fact- which of course they are not, in almost every case. Most photograhers are true visual artists, not merely visual historians or image documentalists. I'm sure Rob can elaborate on this much better than I. I doubt we ever see an image anymore that hasn't been processed in some manner. There is an artistic mind behind it, it's not just a mindless, mechanical or chemical process. Most of the Public Relations paintings commissioned by NASA, the military, industry, are painted in such a style as to convey action & excitement, or to otherwise instill an emotion or feeling of say, high-tech, comfort, safety, etc. Few are works of realism. For those we must look to the paintings commissioned by retired jet pilots, for example, or the drawings of Russell W. Porter (still the unsurpassed standard, over 60 years later). I would stand by the painting as accurately depicting a mood, an emotion generated from the scene itself- and under certain circumstances, the hues and intensities just might be spot-on, as well. Is that "long-haired" and artsy-fartsy (to quote a former boss) enough? ;) In a message dated 3/28/2007 3:36:22 PM Mountain Standard Time, diveboss@xmission.com writes: Joe, I think it is simply an artists interpretation of what Mars might look like to someone who doesn't know any better. After all, if it were meant to depict a realistic image of man back on "his" planet, there would be beer cans scattered everywhere. ;) Which I might add, with the added reflection of the sunlight off the aluminum cans, might very well dilute the brilliant red of the planet to something more like what we see through our Earth based telescopes. :) Just a thought. Quoting cmh856@aol.com:
Joe, a low sun angle means increased reddening from atmospheric extinction- look at the shadows in the painting. An astronaut on Mars wouldn't see
the
same shades and intensities at all times- just as you don't here on earth. A terrestrial example would be a very red sunset seen from an arctic location. Blue & white everywhere, but it all turns deeply red at sundown (or sunup!). Dust & other suspended particulates are the culprits.
So, the answers to your questions are: No, and probably not, although I'm sure there is a lot of color processing and contrast stretching of rover images.
In a message dated 3/28/2007 2:05:51 PM Mountain Standard Time, bau@desnews.com writes:
Hi all, check out this NASA rendering of humans on Mars. Then remember the views Spirit and Opportunity have been sending back. My question: is this NASA artist stuck in some 1950s fantasy about Mars or are we getting paled-out views from the rovers? Thanks, Joe
_http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/28mar_firststeps.htm?list173374_ (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/28mar_firststeps.htm?list173374)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
My wife tried her best to have me trained as a painter too, but I resisted and now we hire it done. Now when ther is any painting to be done, I sit back with a beer, and watch the trained painter, paint. ;) Hey lady, you missed a spot! Quoting cmh856@aol.com:
As a formally trained painter,
Interesting discussion, though I don't feel naive in matters of art. After thinking about it, my take is that NASA is hoking it up to generate enthusiasm, presenting an unrealistic picture that harkens back to pulp sc-fi covers. It's an attempt to mislead the public -- just a bit -- by making Mars look thrilling. I suppose the goal is to persuade Congress to be more generous in appropriations. Next time they should paint in a distant ruined fortress, crumbling away next to the Face on Mars. -- Joe
Guy, judging from the smileys, I'm guessing that your remark is tongue-in-cheek.
As a formally trained painter, I can comment on the piece further. The painting is somewhat stylized and impressionistic, obviously not an intended work of realism. Joe's question is thus a bit naive, from an artistic standpoint, but legitimate from a scientific viewpoint. We are a visually-oriented species- but we often take images as an exact representation of fact- which of course they are not, in almost every case. Most photograhers are true visual artists, not merely visual historians or image documentalists. I'm sure Rob can elaborate on this much better than I. I doubt we ever see an image anymore that hasn't been processed in some manner. There is an artistic mind behind it, it's not just a mindless, mechanical or chemical process.
Most of the Public Relations paintings commissioned by NASA, the military, industry, are painted in such a style as to convey action & excitement, or to otherwise instill an emotion or feeling of say, high-tech, comfort, safety, etc. Few are works of realism. For those we must look to the paintings commissioned by retired jet pilots, for example, or the drawings of Russell W. Porter (still the unsurpassed standard, over 60 years later).
I would stand by the painting as accurately depicting a mood, an emotion generated from the scene itself- and under certain circumstances, the hues and intensities just might be spot-on, as well.
Is that "long-haired" and artsy-fartsy (to quote a former boss) enough? ;)
In a message dated 3/28/2007 3:36:22 PM Mountain Standard Time, diveboss@xmission.com writes:
Joe,
I think it is simply an artists interpretation of what Mars might look like to someone who doesn't know any better. After all, if it were meant to depict a realistic image of man back on "his" planet, there would be beer cans scattered everywhere. ;) Which I might add, with the added reflection of the sunlight off the aluminum cans, might very well dilute the brilliant red of the planet to something more like what we see through our Earth based telescopes. :) Just a thought.
Quoting cmh856@aol.com:
Joe, a low sun angle means increased reddening from atmospheric extinction- look at the shadows in the painting. An astronaut on Mars wouldn't see
the
same shades and intensities at all times- just as you don't here on earth. A terrestrial example would be a very red sunset seen from an arctic location. Blue & white everywhere, but it all turns deeply red at sundown (or sunup!). Dust & other suspended particulates are the culprits.
So, the answers to your questions are: No, and probably not, although I'm sure there is a lot of color processing and contrast stretching of rover images.
In a message dated 3/28/2007 2:05:51 PM Mountain Standard Time, bau@desnews.com writes:
Hi all, check out this NASA rendering of humans on Mars. Then remember the views Spirit and Opportunity have been sending back. My question: is this NASA artist stuck in some 1950s fantasy about Mars or are we getting paled-out views from the rovers? Thanks, Joe
_http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/28mar_firststeps.htm?list173374_ (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/28mar_firststeps.htm?list173374)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hey, Joe, I didn't mean to suggest that you were naive, just the question in the context of that particular painting. I think you're looking for sinister intent where none exists. Didn't Freud once suggest "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"? Have you ever seen the paintings of Alan Bean? The man has been to the moon, yet his paintings are highly stylized and almost abstract- they look nothing like photographs of the events he paints. And he was painting for himself in most cases, not on commssion from an agency seeking funding. http://www.alanbeangallery.com/ Another example is the artist Robert McCall. I'm sure most of us are familiar with his paintings, most famously those concerned with the Apollo program, and the landmark film "2001: A Space Odyssey". http://www.mccallstudios.com/gallery_index.html Again, highly stylized, intentionally meant to instill a feeling of adventure and wonder in the viewer. That is the magic of art. To read politics into it is to do the artist- and yourself- a disservice. I'll bet you no members of Congress see those NASA paintings, although those guys certainly are naive. I happen to think that Mars is pretty thrilling- without the crumbling fortresses. -----Original Message----- From: bau@desnews.com To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] How red is Mars, anyway? Interesting discussion, though I don't feel naive in matters of art. After thinking about it, my take is that NASA is hoking it up to generate enthusiasm, presenting an unrealistic picture that harkens back to pulp sc-fi covers. It's an attempt to mislead the public -- just a bit -- by making Mars look thrilling. I suppose the goal is to persuade Congress to be more generous in appropriations. Next time they should paint in a distant ruined fortress, crumbling away next to the Face on Mars. -- Joe ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Hi, absolutely no offense taken. I agree, Mars is exciting on its own, without the hype. Maybe no Congress members will see the painting but NASA must have an intended target. Is it aimed at the general public? Or at reporters? Either way, if people see a space adventure and like the ida, or If the media gets hyped up, that ttranslates into more public support. And NASA lives or dies by PR. Thanks, Joe
Hey, Joe, I didn't mean to suggest that you were naive, just the question in the context of that particular painting. I think you're looking for sinister intent where none exists. Didn't Freud once suggest "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"?
Have you ever seen the paintings of Alan Bean? The man has been to the moon, yet his paintings are highly stylized and almost abstract- they look nothing like photographs of the events he paints. And he was painting for himself in most cases, not on commssion from an agency seeking funding. http://www.alanbeangallery.com/ Another example is the artist Robert McCall. I'm sure most of us are familiar with his paintings, most famously those concerned with the Apollo program, and the landmark film "2001: A Space Odyssey". http://www.mccallstudios.com/gallery_index.html Again, highly stylized, intentionally meant to instill a feeling of adventure and wonder in the viewer. That is the magic of art. To read politics into it is to do the artist- and yourself- a disservice.
I'll bet you no members of Congress see those NASA paintings, although those guys certainly are naive. I happen to think that Mars is pretty thrilling- without the crumbling fortresses.
-----Original Message----- From: bau@desnews.com To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] How red is Mars, anyway?
Interesting discussion, though I don't feel naive in matters of art. After thinking about it, my take is that NASA is hoking it up to generate enthusiasm, presenting an unrealistic picture that harkens back to pulp sc-fi covers. It's an attempt to mislead the public -- just a bit -- by making Mars look thrilling. I suppose the goal is to persuade Congress to be more generous in appropriations. Next time they should paint in a distant ruined fortress, crumbling away next to the Face on Mars. -- Joe
________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe, remember there is a difference between honest public relations, and propaganda. You mentioned a deliberate attempt to mislead for gain, and that's what I disagree with. I don't associate a particular artistic style with a lobbying effort. I think it's more in-line with Patrick's "ambassador" appointment, for example. Genuine public outreach and a desire to share the enthusiasm for space exploration that the NASA employees themselves feel. Showing the public what they are getting for their money, what's possible when we share a common vision. -----Original Message----- From: bau@desnews.com To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] How red is Mars, anyway? Hi, absolutely no offense taken. I agree, Mars is exciting on its own, without the hype. Maybe no Congress members will see the painting but NASA must have an intended target. Is it aimed at the general public? Or at reporters? Either way, if people see a space adventure and like the ida, or If the media gets hyped up, that ttranslates into more public support. And NASA lives or dies by PR. Thanks, Joe
Hey, Joe, I didn't mean to suggest that you were naive, just the >question in the context of that particular painting. I think >you're looking for sinister intent where none exists. Didn't >Freud once suggest "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"?
Have you ever seen the paintings of Alan Bean? The man has been to >the moon, yet his paintings are highly stylized and almost abstract- >they look nothing like photographs of the events he paints. And he >was painting for himself in most cases, not on commssion from an >agency seeking funding. http://www.alanbeangallery.com/ Another example is the artist Robert McCall. I'm sure most of us >are familiar with his paintings, most famously those concerned with >the Apollo program, and the landmark film "2001: A Space Odyssey". >http://www.mccallstudios.com/gallery_index.html Again, highly stylized, intentionally meant to instill a feeling of >adventure and wonder in the viewer. That is the magic of art. To >read politics into it is to do the artist- and yourself- a >disservice.
I'll bet you no members of Congress see those NASA paintings, >although those guys certainly are naive. I happen to think that >Mars is pretty thrilling- without the crumbling fortresses. >
-----Original Message----- From: bau@desnews.com To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] How red is Mars, anyway?
Interesting discussion, though I don't feel naive in matters of art. >After thinking about it, my take is that NASA is hoking it up to >generate enthusiasm, presenting an unrealistic picture that harkens >back to pulp sc-fi covers. It's an attempt to mislead the public -- >just a bit -- by making Mars look thrilling. I suppose the goal is >to persuade Congress to be more generous in appropriations. Next >time they should paint in a distant ruined fortress, crumbling away >next to the Face on Mars. -- Joe
________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's >free from AOL at AOL.com. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
participants (3)
-
cmh856＠aol.com -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Joe Bauman