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

Perhaps this discussion is turning inward because as i eluded to before it seems to be a closed system.  Artists and scientists like to work with a more open ended problems...I think if this lab were framed more like problem with open ended results encouraged more artists would respond.  A call for art with the guidelines that underlie what it is that you want will get you some interesting involvement. If your criteria is clear you will see how people interpret your ideas. Collaborations can be encouraged in the guidelines in fact i have seen calls for art like this.  It is not productive to argue.  Look outward. What is it you really want to accomplish?

Dear Teri Power

I appeal to artists because the are enrolled in my plan of experimentation.

  I also bioptical compositions but can not claim that I  have artistic potential

of that could launch a new communication which I propose.

  How will highlight artists knowing that each year currently

  are created hundreds of thousands (in  world) of paintings and digital images?

Please read the  synthesis, of my offer.

I hope some artists will be interested to get bioptical  device that is easy to make and that is

essential object of the bond between me and its.

The Bioptical Art provides the opportunity to develop new skills in the visual sense.

Thus highlight the following effects:

See link  ;  3. Bioptical effects, definitions


Psychophysical mixture of colors, retinal cooperation, antispace in art, spatial harmony, bispace in art, psychic cycle, dynamics of space depth, spatial disharmony, hyperrealistic effects, hiatus in art, visual gradient, hyperspace in art, field binocular rivalry.


The modalities that I propose may be valorised by arousing a wider interest, if the fine art artists, by using traditional techniques and their talent, will create complex compositions with bioptical stimuli. On one hand, Bioptical Art will bring developments in research of psychology, neurology and psychiatry, and, on the other hand, it will give possibilities to the field of aesthetics to supplement chapters such as: disinterested interest, art as sensorial experience, art dependent knowledge and others.


We broke up useful techniques in the art of the artistic communication, which belongs to artists.

I am a specialist in mathematical calculation of optical systems, but I handled the psychology

of vision and visual communication applications.


For example:

I think it is interesting to you  as it may  in painting Color Fusion Helmholtz

But the difficulty is that it is not possible to quickly learn the techniques

 that I have researched over 50 years


I recently read an article written by an Indian  Ph.D. student doing his research at CERN. He said he was very worried when he first joined CERN because his department had several Nobel Laureates. One day he was  following one of those Nobel-Laureate-scientists to a lab. The NLS first entered the room and held the door for this young student till he entered the room! "All my fears and misconceptions about NLScientists disappeared with this single incident" wrote the student, "There I was the junior most student and imagine the senior most Nobel Laureate Scientist holding the door for me till I entered the room! He could have closed it on my face as soon as he entered the room. But he didn't! Can you imagine anything like this happening in any other field? "

Need I say more? I agree, scientists are introverts and don't mingle much with others. Not because of their big egos but because of complexity their work loads that don't allow them to have ordinary pleasures. Some don't even get time to properly eat and sleep. It is my own experience that when I am deeply involved in my thoughts and work, even  small disturbances in the form of a few reminders to eat my food would effect them and disrupt the processes and I don't like such disturbances. Food or no food, my work must go on!

That is why scientists are skeptical about the collaborative work with the artists. They will have to consider several things before accepting these. They want assurance  that this won't effect their work in a negative manner. They also want to know that the work with artists can benefit both them and the artists. I agree with Prof. Anand  in this aspect.

Some scientists I spoke to said:  Artists don't try to understand their concerns and assume that because of their superiority complex and ego, they are refusing to work with them. Artists, this assumption is not true. Try to address the concerns of the scientists and convince them that the collaborative work will help  both you and them and I am sure you will get a positive response from them.

I feel there is a communication gap here. Artists, try to answer the questions asked by scientists in the right manner. First you must be convinced about the positive effects to give a good response to scientists. If the scientists are not convinced, they would definitely say 'no'. Don't get disheartened, try to rework the strategy and go back  to them. If you get a negative answer again, the scientists might have thought their pure science work was more important to them than the collaborative work and they didn't have time to spare for the latter. Understand this and proceed to another one who can spare some time.

Scientists are :
Goal oriented
Go Getters

Tips on how to deal with them :

Be practical
Be brief
Be assertive
Be to the point
Be supportive of their goals
Be respectful of their time
Show strength (of your ideas)!

Hope this helps!

Krishna,  my opinions merge with those of yours. Liked the way you put things for the consideration of artists.  Well done.

I would be glad if the artists too gave similar tips to scientists. It would create a better atmosphere to understand their concerns. Science culture is almost uniform around the world but I know artists differ in their views, opinions and ideas as their cultures and regions have influence on their thought processes. Therefore I want to hear from as many artists as possible.


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service