Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Bio Art with Katie Wilde

Katie Wilde's obsession with plant life has spilled over into her art. She produces art that observes and imitates nature, while playing with scale. This sum...
(And this is my opinion: I have several of those plants in my garden! Horticulturalists here make such interesting designs and structures with plants. Is this Bio-art? No, is my firm answer. Sorry - Krishna)

0 members like this

Get Embed Code

Tags:

Comment

You need to be a member of SCI-ART LAB to add comments!

Join SCI-ART LAB

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on April 26, 2013 at 5:51am: http://www.cornellsun.com/section/science/content/2013/04/24/scient...

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on April 16, 2013 at 4:48am: Kavery, sorry for the late reply. I am a very busy person and it takes some time for me to give replies.

I have seen the 'definition' - if you can use that word - of bio-art changing ever since I first came in contact with the word some ten years back. If you go to a site like SymbioticA ( http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/ ), you get one 'image'. And if you go to another site like this one http://www.biofaction.com/synth-ethic/?p=63 , you get another image. If you visit this site http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Painting-With-Penicill... , you get another interesting idea of Bio-art.
For some everything related to biology is bio-art and for some only the 'art' that is related to living tissues defines the subject. Some artists use bio-tech methods - applied sciences of Biology and call it Bio-art.I have seen people describing - tattoo art as Bio-art too. Then some treat sculpting of bodies using plastic surgery methods as Bio-art. With so many methods, definitions and techniques there is confusion all around.
The problem with science-art is there are no guidelines to actually come to a conclusion and form a definite idea. Everybody interprets everything here in the way they want.

For me art is something that comes out of a thorough thought. It interprets the way a person sees the world and in different ways. It should open a dialogue with the viewer, make him/her think and see things differently. Should show things in a new light. Art is incomplete without the perceptual and emotional involvement of the viewer.

Just changing the name of something doesn't make it 'art'.

You can read here how artists are just changing the names of different themes and claiming they

are into science-art: http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/now-landscape-photography-is-beco...

Scientists are complaining that artists are failing to show science themes and theories in a new light. Also they are unable to properly communicate science. This repetition of old substance in the name of science-art doesn't make it sci-art.