For the first time, I did astronomical image
making in an orthodox sense—I downloaded
gigabytes of raw data from the observations,
processed it using astronomical software, and
made my own composite image—so instead of
starting with a published image and making a
new painting from it, this time I started with
the actual data and made a new visualization
from it. In that sense, my visualizations are
completely scientifically valid, although
obviously, I’m motivated by different things,
perhaps, in terms of my reasons for making it
and what I’m trying to achieve.
way of communicating information. Color has
many associations and meanings, and scientists
usually limit themselves to a very restricted
range of choices, perhaps either because they
don’t want to deal with those associations or
because they are oblivious to them; but the
way that we process images is in relation to an
immense stored database in our heads or shared
experience of making images, so a lot of my
work is showing how a particular color choice
for an image will change its meaning and its
resonance.
One of the things that I like to think about
and show in my work is that the colors that we
use to display scientific images are arbitrary.
Scientists know and acknowledge this, but
what they don’t spend a lot of time thinking
about is that when you color an image, it
resonates in the world of images, which is an
incredibly rich, nuanced, and sophisticated
JF: I think the underlying themes are
consistent between the scientific work and the
abstract work. I’m happy for people to respond
to different series in different ways. I think
that’s only natural.
AT: Is it important for people to see the work
through a scientific lens?
Universe Baby
Picture (2002).
72” x 36.”
Acrylic paint on
canvas. Image
courtesy of the
artist.
Visit his website at jonathanfeldschuh.com.
SciArt in America December 2013
23