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

Recent interest in scientist-artist collaborations has raised some important questions. One of them is:  are collaborations helping you in any way?

While artists say they came across new grounds, theories and themes to experiment on  and learnt a  few interesting things and started seeing things in a new light, the scientists didn't give  a positive response except for saying that they are still wondering what these collaborations can do to their work!

One Physicist who is working at CERN says :

CERN has quite an enthusiastic art program now, but there is a feeling that the scientists at CERN retain a high degree of scepticism, maybe even cynicism, but probably mostly indifference to the activity ( )

Disappointed by the outcome, Wellcome group has discontinued funding these projects.

Science is too important to be left to the institutions of science, and art is too important to be left to the institutions of art, says one art professor. Another one expresses doubt whether art can really contribute anything to science ( ).

There are conflicting opinions and confusing reports.

I want to hear from both scientists and artists who are actually on the ground and working in collaborative projects what positive effects they think these collaborations can have on them. And in what way they can help each other to bring more fruitful outcomes.

Views: 821

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Good question, Krishna. I am a professor of Physics. Some time back a meeting was organized in our university by the arts department where artists and scientists discussed the possibility of collaborations between them. I went there because I am a memebr of Art Lab and you created interest in me about creating science art. After an hour of interaction with aritsts I must admit I was deeply disappointed. My colleagues in other science faculties too expressed similar feelings.It was a waste of time. Except for a few arguments nothing came out of it.
I fully agree with the writers of the blogs who correctly pointed out that the scientists are not very interested in these collaborative projects.
Krishna, as a creator of this network you must be very optimistic about the outcomes of these collaborations. I admire your patience. It is difficult to deal with the artists. I neither have time nor patience to deal with them and above all I am sceptical about the artists' ability of understanding science. I know how much Mr. Iliescu is struggling to teach Bioptical art to artists. I have been following his efforts since the induction of the course. While I wish you and him all the best, I give a big thumbs down to these collaborations.
Collaboration with artists and creating science art? No, thanks, I will stick to my science.

Dear Anand

Fortunately art and science have definitions that allow us to establish relations between them.

 I did not quite understand your comment

  For example I think you do not oppose if it is possible to apply in fine art, colored fusion Helmholtz., and other ways that they provide science. But this requires an effort to scrupulously check the effect.

Successfully in your research



Thank you prof. Anand for your reply. I am surprised you gave a thumbs down to these collaborations with just one encounter with the artists.  They are not so difficult to deal with. Artists are very emotional, I agree,  but all the artists here on Art Lab are really good.  They respect me and my time. 

I also agree, Mr. Iliescu is finding it difficult to teach Bioptical art to the artists. But, science is not art and it takes time to understand the techniques. We should have patience.

We cannot expect everybody to be like us.  In this world we have to deal with all sorts of people. My (late) dad used to say - If you behave and react in the same way as others do, there is no use in getting you educated, training you in good manners and bringing you up in a good atmosphere. My entire effort  will go waste if you behave like some stupid, arrogant and uneducated person.

I always keep his words in mind and take things in my stride and try to be as patient and polite as possible.

There are benefits too in collaborating with artists and if you read some of my articles posted here, you will know what they are. Please read them and then get back to this discussion.

Krishna, I did read your optimistic and very positive articles about these collaborations. I am not so sure about these outcomes. My experiences are different. One aspect that merges my opinion with that of yours is artists cannot teach scientists how to be more creative without adversely affecting their scientific way of working. You hit the nail exactly on the head there. You  have a very analytical mind. I wonder how you try to seperate create side of your brain from analytical side of it while dealing with two completely different subjects. I am amazed! How do you cope with all these things? They say women are good at multitasking. Multitasking in day today affairs is different from multitasking with regard to brainy issues. I have seen several women in the former group but you are the only woman I came across in the latter catogory. I bow my head with respect. You are incomparable!  

I wonder how these collaborations can help artists. I am trying to learn the Bioptical art techniques but finding it difficult to even understand how to see  correctly the pics drawn by the tutor. I am from the arts and find science a tough subject. All that I know about Biology is a double helix of DNA, a few red blood cells and a few environmental problems. l am sure the aritsts cannot understand science like the scientists do like Prof. anand correctly pointed out. If you cannot understand it properly how can you create art from it and present it in the right way? I am not surprised only a minority of artists are creating science-art and they too are not delving deeply into the scientific theories. All that they can do is draw a few pics of DNA or make sculptures of them, show environmental problems through art,  or copy pics from the texts like DR. Krishna said in her articles. Only people who can present science in the correct way are scientists themselves. But can they get the art part of it right?

Dr. Krishna, you can do a better job than artists with regard to science themes. Forget about artists doing works as good as you do. I  agree with the bloggers and  Prof. Anand. You got to be too optimistic to expect high quality work from us in the subject of science-art. 

I personally believe that incase I met a scientist, who explains and developes his theories by my side, possibilities of visualization would grow.Thank You.

It will help if programmed well

Well!, welcome to the show!,Mr Gopi Kanta Gosh!. An artist should not be consider just an images producer.
Some artist investigate, and have some knowledge, lets call it maths, physics, chemistry, and have been trying for a life time to create eternal free energy,(one of my favorite), for instance.If you don`t mind, tell me about your activity, and will see if we spark together. In that case, we`ll programm a way to be nearby. Thank You!  (hope is not unpolite). Feel free to contact me, I`m excited about all this!!!

Mr Gopi Kanta Gosh, I consider artist could help scientist, incase artists get very involved with scientist`s project, and they could follow the steps to visualize together.Scientist helping artist would be possible incase results of experiments offer the artist tools , technics, or ideas, who knows!. But everything starts with the project!!!

Here is an example of how an artist accidentally helped science:
Watch this video and let me know what you think.

find absolutely great!!!, possibly are still working on it, very interesting!. Thank You!

As I am an artist,visual artist my language is bound to directly create images. This Way to reflect about our existence in a nondogmatic way (religion),is a hundert of thousands of Year Old Way and joins scientific understanding in oposition to preisstabilshed visions. The possible Communication by words and numbers is one way. In times as the rational and logic understanding had been rediscovered in Europe (Renaissance), and freedom of thaughts made it possible to walk fearless, because of knowledge. Artistic representations were than done with the vision of the hight of the eyes [perspective]. Leonardo da Vinci invented a lot of things, I suppose he he did Not care if he is a scientist or an Artist.
Cézanne Painted with hesitation the same motive over and over, being more concerned by the relation of form versus light, colour and materia,than by illustrative proceeding.
Evolutive processes are Not linear,as a Lot of scientists would wish, creative enrichement between Art and Science is possible but Inner modesty is a key to it, because the scream of the Inner Ego often does not allow the sensitive paths of discovery.


© 2022   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service