t00fri wrote:The basic strategy I applied was to try and find a good compromise
between a /conspicuously mnemnonic/ drawing (e.g. Gemini, Orion, Taurus,
Canis minor, Scorpius, Perseus, Hercules, Libra, ...), /popularity/ of
the figures (Ursa major/minor, Andromeda, Cassiopeia, Lyra, Virgo,...)
and /simplicity/, i.e. the restriction to sufficiently bright stars.
I had some similar thoughts while I was compiling my own figures and wrote down what I found to be the basic strategies followed when drawing constellations. It seemed to me that different authors had different goals in mind:
1. "Pointers" approach (original Celestia set, newspaper astronomy columns): Show
simple asterisms linking bright or noteworthy stars, and leave off
everything else.
Pros: Best for complete beginners to get themselves oriented, especially
in poor seeing conditions.
Cons: Not very useful for more advanced observers. Many dim
constellations will disappear entirely. Constellations usually don't
look like much of anything, with surreal exceptions like the Teapot.
2. "Transit Map" approach (seasonal sky maps in Olcott and Mayall,
"Field Guide to the Stars"): Augment the above with spidery, branching
structures that connect most of the naked-eye-visible stars to the
skeleton of the constellation.
Pros: Probably the most useful for advanced amateurs seeking to locate
objects for binocular or telescope viewing; helps locate individual
objects in a constellation by encouraging "star-hopping" along lines
that appear readily to the eye.
Cons: Spidery figures are ugly, similar-looking, and mnemonically
useless for finding whole constellations; confusing to novices.
3. "Cartoon Figures" approach (H. A. Rey, "The Stars: A New Way to See
Them"): Strain to find cute figurative representations of the
constellation names by connecting dimmer stars.
Pros: Star maps are charming and attractive to children and novices;
avoids "what were they thinking?" reaction; constellations may be
mnemonically useful to people blessed with clear, dark skies. (Rey's book was a great inspiration to me as a child, even though I couldn't see most of the figure he drew.)
Cons: People in the city won't be able to see those cartoons in the
actual sky; constellation lines may not be convenient for star-hopping;
pretty much dead in the water for all those southern-hemisphere
constellations named after scientific instruments.
4. "Here Be Dragons" approach (cave paintings, very old texts,
astrologers): Draw fanciful pictures on top of the stars instead of
connecting them with lines.
Pros: Makes pretty, archaic-looking illustrations for discussions of
star lore.
Cons: Bad for any astronomical use, since the actual stars get lost in
visual chaos. See also #3.
Some combination of 1-3 will be optimal for any given audience. You
probably want to lean toward Transit Maps if drawing for an audience
already well familiar with the night sky, or talking about deep-sky
objects; some combination of Pointers and Cartoon Figures will be better
for Jack Horkheimer-like pop use, with caveats about what the audience
will really be able to see in a given situation. A Here Be Dragons
drawing might be useful as an adjunct, but only if you're talking about
history or mythology, and I tend to think that anything Dragons can do,
Cartoon Figures can probably do better.
A possibly good approach that I don't think I've seen used on a large
scale is to use lines of differing brightness; you could draw the
Pointer asterisms in heavy lines and type 2 or 3 additions in lighter
ones.