Starship Asterisk*

Please vote for the answer you think is best. Please feel free to explain you vote below! For completeness, the image being featured in the APOD is .

It is a very nice picture of a 'spacey' reflection, but i can't see past the reflection good enough to be able to tell if Art is in the suit or not, so i couldn't vote.
Art normally looks like this when he goes out and about. As you can see, there is no reflection of anything off the glasses.

Beyond wrote:
It is a very nice picture of a 'spacey' reflection, but i can't see past the reflection
good enough to be able to tell if Art is in the suit or not, so i couldn't vote.

• • . Macbeth Act 1, Scene 2
  
  Sergeant: As whence the sun 'gins his reflection
  • Shipwrecking storms and direful thunders break.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  • . Cymbeline Act 1, Scene 2
  
  Second Lord: She shines not upon fools, lest the reflection should hurt her.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond wrote:
Art normally looks like this when he goes out and about.
As you can see, there is no reflection of anything off the glasses.

• • . Troilus and Cressida Act 3, Scene 3
  
  ULYSSES: A strange fellow here
  • Writes me: 'That man, how dearly ever parted,
    How much in having, or without or in,
    Cannot make boast to have that which he hath,
    Nor feels not what he owes, but by reflection;
    As when his virtues shining upon others
    Heat them and they retort that heat again
    To the first giver.'
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  • . Julius Caesar Act 1, Scene 2
  
  BRUTUS No, Cassius; for the eye sees not itself,
  • But by reflection, by some other things.
  
  CASSIUS: Therefore, good Brutus, be prepared to hear:
  • And since you know you cannot see yourself
    So well as by reflection, I, your glass,
    Will modestly discover to yourself
    That of yourself which you yet know not of.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

I never quite realized that the earth was in the reflection also. But Art has just shown through it. So i voted yes. That's Art.

No, it's a selfie, and selfies are never art.

(I just made up that rule. -- Well, somebody has to.)

Rob

Art is eponymous; an obscure reflection of the world about. J Lord

"Is it really art?
Your opinion is the only one that matters."

Jackson Pollack

IMHO - an emphatic no.

Art needs a new multi-coated filter on his iPhone in a case there. A better one than he has now would reduce the little redish globs floating off to image left, down to nothing.

It may not be art (though I certainly voted that it is), but I find it very artistic, and quite poetic. According to one definition of art, it's anything that evokes an emotional response, whether good or bad. The only real problem that I have with that definition is that this places a slap to the face or a kick to the groin within the realm of art, and that's just plain wrong.

This photo reminds me of something right out of "2001 A Space Odyssey". So in that way I think it is art. Except that a close-up of the tiny red area under the middle of the lower helmet appears to be a small rip in the spacesuit. That brings reality back so fast that it kind of slams you in the face. I hope that it's not reality.

Yes, absolutly art. Because this image was taken to express something, to reflect similar images taken before - and it was made with that intension.
Additionaly, after I have have visited the dOCUMENTA(13), the biggest show for contemporary art, I still rethink art ...

Is the astronaut an Artist? Was the image intended to be Art? The difference between craftsmanship and artistry can be confusing.

If "art" is a statement, then this surely is. There is a lot of imagery, that goes far beyond the picture. One could argue that it represents man's progress, from the Earth below to the Sun and deep space, rooted in the reality of that thin tether to life, the Space Station. The simple truth lies in the picture itself, in that statement, the photographer is himself proof of it. Fantastic, imho.

I said No because although it's a quality photo and beautifully composed, its purpose is to record, not to express.

That was my first impression, but I don't necessarily believe myself.

At first I couldn't find the earth in this picture. There it was! Staring me right in the face(mask)!
Is it art? I enjoyed it, it made me think. so, it arroused both curiosity and emotion. To me that qualifies as art. But, there is no such thing as qualifying art. That's been going on for ages. Plenty will say that Pollack is not art. The astronaut created an image. It can therefore be called art. I guess. The fact that anyone can take a picture or make a drizzle painting in no way diminishes it being a work of art. Nature, too, is an artist. End of rant....thanks!

It reminds me of the Escher print of him looking into a mirrored ball.

Art is anything we make that carries within it meaning or significance beyond itself; anything metaphorical. Here the reflection is an image of a human who is the cosmos aware of itself.

"Art" is hard to define. As a photographer, I have wondered what makes a photo a piece of art. I don't think it should be defined as "anything that evokes an emotional response" or "makes a statement". Is a mirror on the wall art? A rock hung from the ceiling? It could evoke an emotional response, and make a statement, but I don't think it's art. On the other hand, some people say that the paintings of Thomas Kinkade are not art. It's clear to me that they are, and quite good art.

I guess I'd say that this photo by Aki Hoshide, unless framed intentionally to be art, is not art. I will say that it's an artistic and moving photo, and leave it at that.

Impossible to answer the poll without answering “What is art” first.
Can you independently define art, even just a sub-category, without examples or opinions of others? I find that really hard to do.
I like the definition MW 4a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced.
Unfortunately, the above may be to broad, as I could come up with examples that fit the criteria, but are outside the realm of what I instinctively consider art. Likewise, this definition lacks a value system: how much skill, creativity and aesthetic sense is needed? ‘Very little’ is not enough, and I suppose this sliding scale is a dreaded grey area.
I’ve also heard art being defined as “anything that the art critic community considers art”. While true for most art, I don’t like this ‘definition’ because of the circular reasoning. But it is more than just a joke/word-play.

Back to the photo: The basic idea is not original, and similar images have been produced before. Nonetheless, it is unique because of its setting: this moment, this astronaut, his framing, this chosen backdrop. It serves only aesthetic display purposes, I suppose. But IMHO it lacks the level of creativity that I like to see for it deserving the label ‘art’.
Could someone without any sense of art, a non-artist if you will, make this photograph purposely? If so, it shouldn’t be labeled ‘art’.
Would an artist photographer come back with a totally different self-portrait? I kinda hope so.

Alexei Leonov, in contrast, experienced space and made imaginative paintings based on that. This poll wouldn’t have run with his work.

FLPhotoCatcher wrote:"Art" is hard to define.

Art cannot be defined. If you define art, the whole concept of art itself becomes meaningless.
Is it art when I design simple flyers for our local football team? I think everyone would agree with me when I say no. Sometimes it seems obvious what art is and which works are not to classify under this term. But then again artists like Marcel Duchamp break this tradition.
Nowadays, money decides what ends up in a museum one day. If a rich collector likes what he sees, than you can be sure that the artist will become famous one day. I like Pollock's art and his biography is quite interesting too.

timpim wrote:

FLPhotoCatcher wrote:"Art" is hard to define.

Art cannot be defined. If you define art, the whole concept of art itself becomes meaningless.

Not defining it is too easy. You have to define something, if only just to know that you’re talking about the same thing. Even if you change your mind/the definition later.

timpim wrote:Nowadays, money decides what ends up in a museum one day.

Museums often collect (and so they should) pieces that are significant for the history of art. Pollock was special because what he did wasn’t considered art before that time. Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning sort of invented abstract expressionism. It was the ‘giant leap’.

It's a beautiful blend of art, science and technology creating an image of . . .well . . . art, science and technology!! People can make wonderful artful collages using technology like Photoshop. Why not a wonderful "collage" such as this to express the complexity, brilliance and majesty of humans at work. It ain't the Mona Lisa, but it IS beautiful in an enigmatic way!

I love this photo because it's one of the few pictures I've ever seen that contains every human in the universe within it's frame. All the humans on Earth and in the ISS and even the photographer are represented which I think could be a first. And I think almost everything is art so of course my vote is "yes" this incredible self portrait of the human race certainly is.

Unfortunately, since about the mid-20th century, you can do anything at all and, if you can keep a straight face while doing so, you can call it art and you will be believed -- at least by some. This photo isn't like that. It's a record of a moment. It may have been a moving moment for those involved or for us subsequent viewers, but that doesn't make it art. It's skillfully done, but you would thank the technology for that, not the person who pushed the button.

The whole concept of Art as we know it today is rather odd, and perhaps indefensible. Many museum pieces now described as Art were considered to be craft at the time they were made, and were certainly made to a paying customer's specifications and taste. Others are only considered to be Art because a taste-maker of a particular time and place decided they needed to be kept for posterity, while many other works of that time and place were lost in obscurity, perhaps unjustly.

I suppose the most concise definition of Art is the old standby... Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Rob