<p>It is now a well accepted and used names for the structures shown in the photograph of the same name.</p>
<p>A quick check of Google Scholar shows &quot;Pillars of Creation&quot; in the title of many published articles, primarily on new star formation.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=%22pillars+of+creation%22" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=%22pillars+of+creation%22</a></li>
</ul>
<p>See also IOPScience:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/nsearch?terms=pillars+of+creation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://iopscience.iop.org/nsearch?terms=pillars+of+creation</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>Okay so what exactly IS a pillar? And what's with this &quot;creation&quot; stuff?</h3>
<p>While there is as yet no Wikipedia page for &quot;astrophysical pillars&quot; these are recognized structures supporting star formation in contexts outside of the Eagle Nebula.</p>
<ul>
<li>ApJ Fukui (2019) <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab4900" rel="nofollow noreferrer">An ALMA View of Molecular Filaments in the Large Magellanic Cloud. I. The Formation of High-mass Stars and Pillars in the N159E-Papillon Nebula Triggered by a Cloud–Cloud Collision</a> &quot;and the column density of the pillars is an order of magnitude higher than that of the pillars in the Eagle nebula (M16)&quot;</li>
<li>ApJ Gritschneder et al (2010) <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/971" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Detailed Numerical Simulations on the Formation of Pillars around HII Regions</a> &quot;At the interface between the H ii region and the molecular gas, peculiar structures, often called pillars, are found. The most famous examples are the &quot;pillars of creation&quot; in the Eagle Nebula (M16)...&quot;</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-24T00:40:28.287Z
2022-10-24T00:40:28.287Z
uhoh
<p>I'd like to resolve this naming technicality by locating an official naming authority, if one exists.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, &quot;Pillars of Creation&quot; was the name given to <em><strong>the photograph</strong></em> that Hubble took of NGC 6611 - M16 - The Eagle Nebula.  And wasn't actually intending to give an official name to that particular star-forming/destroying part of the Eagle Nebula itself.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Creation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> seems to capture the original use of the name well:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Pillars of Creation <em><strong>is a photograph</strong></em> taken by the Hubble Space Telescope of elephant trunks of interstellar gas and dust in the Eagle Nebula...</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>In calling the Hubble's spectacular new <em><strong>image of</strong></em> the Eagle Nebula the Pillars of Creation...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>After earning huge cultural significance, that the name of the photograph seems to have become the ubiquitous name of that part of the nebula. e.g. <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-pillars-of-creation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">nasa.gov</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the Pillars of Creation are a fascinating but relatively small feature of the entire Eagle Nebula...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now, especially with JWST's new image of the feature, I'm starting to see more cases where &quot;Pillars of Creation&quot; is referring to the nebula, not the image of it, i.e. the <em>subject</em> of photograph, as opposed to the <em>photograph itself</em>.</p>
<p>There's no arguing that it's an overwhelmingly popular moniker for the astronomical object, but is this one of those &quot;<em>Frankenstein is the doctor, not the monster</em>&quot; kind of situations?  Or is that part of the Eagle Nebula actually <strong>officially named</strong> as such somewhere?</p>
<p>I'm not sure where I would go to look for such an official name to resolve this issue - that's my real question.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-21T16:29:07.880Z
There are no official names.  That's not how language works.  Names are "what people call things."
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-21T16:32:22.013Z
This is kinda like the idea that the dictionary doesn't make new words to define, it only documents how existing words are used.  But once it's written down, people will point to the dictionary to tell you you're using a word incorrectly.  If we're not going to accept the "pillars of creation" as the name for that part of the nebula, how would such names ever come into existence?
Greg Miller
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-21T16:53:41.630Z
The comment "there are no official names" seems a little over-reaching.  For example the [IAU provides names](https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/) for planets, satellites, constellations and much more.  I agree that there is no _ultimate_ authority on names, (you can't stop people from calling things what they do) but certainly there are dominant organizations (like IAU) defining names for a wide range of objects and their features aren't there?  That's all I meant by "official".  Perhaps you're saying nebulae and their features are not named by the IAU or any other big organization?
Wyck
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-21T20:11:47.797Z
The IAU help people coordinate what to call things, particularly solar system bodies.  But they have no *authority*.  Nebulae either have catalogue codes like "M16" or names in the same way that mountains or lakes have names.  "Eagle nebula" isn't official but it is what that thing is *called* (in English) "Pillars of Creation" is similar.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-23T02:53:28.227Z
highly relevant to the comment train (but not the question): [Why were two galaxies named "The Sagittarius Galaxy"? Is this common?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/36354/7982)
uhoh
<naming>
Is "Pillars of Creation" is the name of the photograph or the name of the thing being photographed?
Wyck
# Is "Pillars of Creation" is the name of the photograph or the name of the thing being photographed?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-21)

I'd like to resolve this naming technicality by locating an official naming authority, if one exists.

As far as I can tell, "Pillars of Creation" was the name given to ***the photograph*** that Hubble took of NGC 6611 - M16 - The Eagle Nebula. And wasn't actually intending to give an official name to that particular star-forming/destroying part of the Eagle Nebula itself.

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Creation) seems to capture the original use of the name well:

> Pillars of Creation ***is a photograph*** taken by the Hubble Space Telescope of elephant trunks of interstellar gas and dust in the Eagle Nebula...

> In calling the Hubble's spectacular new ***image of*** the Eagle Nebula the Pillars of Creation...

After earning huge cultural significance, that the name of the photograph seems to have become the ubiquitous name of that part of the nebula. e.g. [nasa.gov](https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-pillars-of-creation):

> the Pillars of Creation are a fascinating but relatively small feature of the entire Eagle Nebula...

Now, especially with JWST's new image of the feature, I'm starting to see more cases where "Pillars of Creation" is referring to the nebula, not the image of it, i.e. the *subject* of photograph, as opposed to the *photograph itself*.

There's no arguing that it's an overwhelmingly popular moniker for the astronomical object, but is this one of those "*Frankenstein is the doctor, not the monster*" kind of situations? Or is that part of the Eagle Nebula actually **officially named** as such somewhere?

I'm not sure where I would go to look for such an official name to resolve this issue - that's my real question.

**Tags:** naming

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There are no official names.  That's not how language works.  Names are "what people call things."  
> **username_2**: This is kinda like the idea that the dictionary doesn't make new words to define, it only documents how existing words are used.  But once it's written down, people will point to the dictionary to tell you you're using a word incorrectly.  If we're not going to accept the "pillars of creation" as the name for that part of the nebula, how would such names ever come into existence?  
> **username_0**: The comment "there are no official names" seems a little over-reaching.  For example the [IAU provides names](https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/) for planets, satellites, constellations and much more.  I agree that there is no _ultimate_ authority on names, (you can't stop people from calling things what they do) but certainly there are dominant organizations (like IAU) defining names for a wide range of objects and their features aren't there?  That's all I meant by "official".  Perhaps you're saying nebulae and their features are not named by the IAU or any other big organization?  
> **username_1**: The IAU help people coordinate what to call things, particularly solar system bodies.  But they have no *authority*.  Nebulae either have catalogue codes like "M16" or names in the same way that mountains or lakes have names.  "Eagle nebula" isn't official but it is what that thing is *called* (in English) "Pillars of Creation" is similar.  
> **username_3**: highly relevant to the comment train (but not the question): [Why were two galaxies named "The Sagittarius Galaxy"? Is this common?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/36354/7982)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2022-10-24. Score: 3

It is now a well accepted and used names for the structures shown in the photograph of the same name.

A quick check of Google Scholar shows "Pillars of Creation" in the title of many published articles, primarily on new star formation.

* <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22pillars+of+creation%22>

See also IOPScience:

* <https://iopscience.iop.org/nsearch?terms=pillars+of+creation>

### Okay so what exactly IS a pillar? And what's with this "creation" stuff?

While there is as yet no Wikipedia page for "astrophysical pillars" these are recognized structures supporting star formation in contexts outside of the Eagle Nebula.

* ApJ Fukui (2019) [An ALMA View of Molecular Filaments in the Large Magellanic Cloud. I. The Formation of High-mass Stars and Pillars in the N159E-Papillon Nebula Triggered by a Cloud–Cloud Collision](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab4900) "and the column density of the pillars is an order of magnitude higher than that of the pillars in the Eagle nebula (M16)"
* ApJ Gritschneder et al (2010) [Detailed Numerical Simulations on the Formation of Pillars around HII Regions](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/971) "At the interface between the H ii region and the molecular gas, peculiar structures, often called pillars, are found. The most famous examples are the "pillars of creation" in the Eagle Nebula (M16)..."


---

