Post-Impressionistic "Oil" of Jupiter: But is it Art?

[SorellaLaBefana]

...In digital brush strokes, Jupiter's signature atmospheric bands and vortices were used to form this interplanetary post-impressionist work of art. The creative image...uses data from the Juno spacecraft's JunoCam. To paint on the digital canvas, a JunoCam image with contrasting light and dark tones was chosen for processing and an oil-painting software filter applied...

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap250419.html

Being an early bird, most mornings have breakfast by myself. In the past would prop up a book. Now look over a series of usual websites. When the above image popped up I was disoriented for a moment thinking that somehow had switched the tab order and had skipped over APOD for an Art site 😊

When realized that, no, this *was* the APOD I then got distracted by that perennial question: “But is it Art?” This is a question to which many of us have conflicting views and at conflicting times.

This morning, based on my response to the image before I knew how it had been created, there is No Question that this creation is “Art”. Others mileage may vary.

Later came to the daily art site, where found that a quiz on the Impressionist Monet was the featured article for this Saturday morn—or, as we say in Texas, Sábado por la mañana

https://www.dailyartmagazine.com

The Daily Art Magazine site is a wonderful source of inspiration and of history. They have a nice article on the Post-Impressionism which APOD was exploring—exploring along with exploring our universe.

Here's a link to read a bit more about Juno's Exploration of Jupiter


NB: decided to XP this in GD as well. Hope that's OK. We need all the HOPE we can get these days.

[marble falls]

1. What makes it art (and all art, art) is the effect it has without out knowing how it was created ...

... if it evokes, it's probably art.

This evokes big time.

[highplainsdem]

3. Nature here on Earth and in the universe beyond is very evocative. Jupiter is beautiful.

[marble falls]

5. To me this is the art that shows a Creator's hand.

[highplainsdem]

2. It's an image altered automatically by a filter. You can call it art if you like, but it isn't deliberate art

in the sense that an actual painting is.

It's a nice image.

[highplainsdem]

4. Btw, I should add that in my understanding, creating art requires intention and work. That's why, for

instance, image generating via AI is not art. The person prompting the AI may claim the prompt is an intention, but the images generated are not that person's work, the image generator doesn't really understand the intention, and the same prompt can produce endless and wildly different variations.

There are people using filters who feel that the decision to use a filter suffices to make something art. Some people will agree with that. Others won't.

Some will say that just the choice of an image is enough work and intention to make it deliberate art. Again, that's a very low bar. Especially when the person sorting through, say, a huge assortment of photos hadn't taken any of them. Applying a filter to a chosen image doesn't change that. The intention and work involved are trivial compared to doing a painting.

If someone cropped just the face of the Mona Lisa and applied a filter to it, would you consider that cropped and filtered image art?

Again, this was a beautiful photo of Jupiter. It looks nice with the filter, too.

[AllaN01Bear]

6. its shrinking!!!!! its shrinking.! wow

[drmeow]

7. To me

it is beautiful and artistic but, as a collector of sorts, if I was in a gallery and it was for sale as a work of art I would not buy it. I might buy a framed copy from Target ($39.99!) and hang it on my wall and enjoy it but I wouldn't buy it as art.