The image I chose to include for this prompt is perhaps one of the most well-known astronomy "photographs." Taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1995, it quickly circulated through countless astronomy publications both in print and online. On its own, the image is often used to illustrate the beautiful majesty of space. The image was aptly titled the "Pillars of Creation" due to the fact that the vast clouds of hydrogen and other elements are active stellar nurseries fostering the birth of new stars.
I chose this photo because it has represented a number of things to me over time. My grandfather taught me the name of the planets before I could spell, and gave me so many opportunities to look through a telescope at closer marvels such as Jupiter and Saturn. Because of that, astronomy has always been an important part of my life and images such as the Pillars still evoke a sense of awe and wonder. Browse through any magazine devoted to astronomy (there may be 2 or 3 left going strong) and you'll be treated to similar imagery. To many, the Pillars of Creation might mark the popular conception of space as held by the general public. However, there is a slight problem (pause for dramatic effect): The photograph is not real.
The Hubble Space Telescope, our most heralded optic telescope (until the upcoming launch of the James Webb Space Telescope) is only capable of taking black and white images. I certainly never knew that until recently, as almost any image produced by Hubble seems extremely vivid and colorful. False-color astrophotography is certainly not uncommon, as I recall an article by Bob Berman stating that space is almost uniformly red in hue. In fact, our eyes wouldn't have enough light in space to detect colors. But, the false-color nature of images isn't often granted huge attention. Even so, this photo is notable in the fact that there were no "disclaimers" attached stating that the colors were not accurate. It was presented as a photographic, factual representation. As this makes evident, certain liberties are often taken with space photography, and some are more ethical than others. The Pillars of Creation gained their colors due to an analysis of the elemental components present within the gases via spectrum analysis. From those readings, colors were applied to each element. However, the colors applied did not correspond to any physical color of these elements, and certain colors were enhanced to produce a more attractive image. In particular, the turquoise throughout much of the image is blatantly false and the result of greatly oversimulating the presence of cobalt. Therefore, this image, which has stood as one of the most recognizable images in astrophotography, can be considered a fairly technical and elaborate photoshopping job.
A second consideration might have to do with what Berger mentioned about photography and truth, and how there is a discontinuity between the time of the image and the time of viewing the image. In the case of astrophotography, this is even more evident. The pillars of creation lie some 7000 lightyears away from earth. Thus, the image we are receiving via light interacting with Hubble Telescope does not represent a current moment, but rather a look into the past. Furthermore, recently it was detected that there had been a supernova explosion in the vicinity of the Pillars, some 1000 light years away from them. The conclusion to that statement is that these formations were destroyed nearly 6000 years ago, but we will have to wait a very long time to receive any sort of visual confirmation of that destruction.
So what does this mean, and what questions does this image lead me to consider?
1.) Should images such as the Pillars of Creation be considered true photographs, even though most of their composition is drawn from often non-visual information? Are they still "factual" in terms of their representation?
2.) How do false-color images such as the Pillars gain credibility or "real"-ness due to their close association with scientific observation and objectivity?
3.) How far does artistic license extend in the composition of such images? What is the effect or intention of an increased focus on aesthetic appearance?
4.) And most broadly, what does this image actually represent?
Bret,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting choice for your image! I learned from you choosing this image- I didn't know that the space images are actually only in black and white. This knowledge does seem to change the perspective on what we thought we knew about space and the images in our heads when we think about space after knowing this truth, doesn't it? Per your question #2, I think that we as a society do give images/results/findings from the scientific realm more "leeway". Is this because they use intricate, complex processes that seem to be above someone's understanding who is not versed in that particular field (or the realm of science in general)? I think that has a lot to with it for me, anyway. As someone who has only the most basic understanding of space (and, apparently, even the small amount of understanding I thought I had is based on images like these which I don't even understand the reality of), I wouldn't even think to question the truth of an image like this because it is based in the scientific tradition until someone like you pointed it out to me. I think you are alluding to, and questioning, the trust we place in the scientific community to present us with truth and not to mislead us. You mentioned there was no caption or explanation about the coloring of the image- would you feel less "mislead" if that information had been provided? (I would.) Should the scientific community be held to some sort of standard about providing information like that with images they produce and put forth for public viewing? Would you feel that the "reality" of the image was more authentic, more "real" if the information about the color was provided upfront? Do you think there is some underlying motive for using the color to make the image more visually appealing? What could that motive be? I'm reminded of the weather images we looked at in class last week, and how the scientists behind those images imposed colors on the images in hopes of "phrasing" the information in "laymen's terms" so that we would be able to understand the weather they are predicting. I didn't feel that the authenticity of those images was changed or that they were misleading, although those colors didn't really exist, either. (Actually, I EXPECT for colors to be imposed on weather images.) I'm thinking this is because there was a key to let us know the colors stood for something and were imposed on the images. If I had never experienced an image like that before and took it as the reality- perhaps if I thought if I was somehow capable of taking a picture of that same weather phenomenon and thought it would come out looking exactly like those weather images looked- then I would feel misled, like the "truth" was withheld from me. So, if the colors were imposed on the space image for educational purposes, to point out the different elements present in the gasses, then why was no key provided? If educating "laymen" wasn't the purpose, what was the purpose of adding the color? I'm sure there are scientific purposes for assigning the different colors in order to study things about the images, such colors that the human eye wouldn't be able to detect, etc., but, when releasing for view by the public, it would seem that an explanation of these reasons or a key would have been provided...
Dear Bret,
ReplyDeleteI’m with you on the “big lies science tells us” track (also, nice pun). I, too, was devastated to learn that space did not look like Rainbow Land (which in case you’ve forgotten looks like this http://trainingop.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=50&g2_serialNumber=1). I saw Saturn through a telescope once and you could see rings and it was breath taking. But there was no color in it. And then my TA told me that yeah, there’s no color in space.
The questions you’ve asked here remind me of Donna Haraway’s “Situated Knowledges,” where she criticizes scientific photographs because they are taken with unnatural instruments (things we had to construct, to answer the questions we wanted to ask, with the capabilities we could build) that we pretend are unflawed and somehow unbiased. The Hubble Telescope works at all because it can capture light – which isn’t even an unbiased thing (it reflects on some things, but not all in a variety of spectrums). These are things we could never see given only the resources we are born with, so this is clearly a pretty cool innovation, but these images serve to create fact, not represent it (as I would claim all science does). So when you ask if these are still “factual” images, I say sure. Moreover, the manipulation of the image while perhaps not a reflection of what we would really see if we could really look into space draws attention to more facts: astronomers claim that the images are manipulated in order to demonstrate the presence different types of gas and other physics stuff I don’t know about. So while this image doesn’t “factually” display what we’d see if we were there, it does create the fact of gasses and chemical compositions and that other physics stuff I don’t know about.
Too, I think you’d be hard pressed to find any images called scientific data that haven’t been manipulated in some way. Granted, to a lesser degree (lens focus, magnification, etc.). But that would lead me to ask you what sorts of manipulations are ok and what sorts are not? Which are artistic and which are not? Also you should totally check out Objectivity by Daston and Galison if you are interested in visual representations of science. It is really long and a little dry, but totally worth it in the end. (I hope that’s not presumptuous. I just got really excited to talk some rhetoric of science there and wanted to share the love. So thanks for an awesome post :)
Cheers,
Heather
The colors in this particular image function in two ways: 1) they give the image an aesthetic quality that makes the image both fascinating and haunting and 2) they make the image carry more semiotic weight (I would argue) than it would in black and white, because the colors help us (or those who study astronomy, I should say) break the image down into manageable pieces (that we can know and understand).
ReplyDeleteI think these points are interrelated (mostly because they combine to intensify my fear of space). Let me explain. Aesthetically, the teal glow of the pillars makes them ethereal, radiant, powerful, and almost supernatural. Of course, this is my personal and contextualized reading of the assignment of colors to this image, but collectively, the colors work together to construct the Universe as something that is unknowable and mystical, both of which terrify me.
The second function argues the opposite. The colors have been assigned, because they help emphasize the different elements at works within the pieces (even though, Bret, you acknowledge that the colors do not have any physical correlation, they still emphasize that there are different elements, like cobalt, composing the pillars). Theoretically, these colors make the image easier to study, to know, and to make knowledge with. However, because I do not study astronomy, the colors have no meaning to me outside of what Bret tells us. Thus, the image is simultaneously more-knowable (to some) and less-knowable (for me, because it involves two subjects with which I am completely unfamiliar). So, this is a ramble, obviously, but in so rambling, I’ve thought aloud about the semiotic capabilities and possibilities of color and the function of the photo-shopped colors within this image, which, I think, is part of what this image actually represents.