Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa's Posts - SCI-ART LAB
2024-03-29T15:50:04Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9943779084?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1
https://kkartlab.in/profiles/blog/feed?user=1ljtu0jos0087&xn_auth=no
The words love, lust and other emotions: The makeup to biochemistry to make it look beautiful
tag:kkartlab.in,2022-05-26:2816864:BlogPost:242110
2022-05-26T06:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<div class="Ar Au Ao" id=":42o"><div class="Am Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY" id=":42k">The words love, lust and other emotions: The makeup to biochemistry to make it look beautiful </div>
<div class="Am Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY"><br clear="all"></br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p></p>
<div>Recently one person asked me this Q: You say you are drunk on science. This is a bit unusual for a woman. Why is science so important to you? What is the difference between science and other fields…</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id=":42o" class="Ar Au Ao"><div id=":42k" class="Am Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY">The words love, lust and other emotions: The makeup to biochemistry to make it look beautiful </div>
<div class="Am Al editable LW-avf tS-tW tS-tY"><br clear="all"/><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p></p>
<div>Recently one person asked me this Q: You say you are drunk on science. This is a bit unusual for a woman. Why is science so important to you? What is the difference between science and other fields that makes science so special?</div>
<p></p>
<div><span>My biochemistry is giving me a signal (1). Dopamine and oxytocin! Yes, their concentration is increasing in my system now because I heard the word 'Science'. </span></div>
<p></p>
<div>LOVE. They say this changes everything including the perspective with which you see the world. I am in love with science. Just the way science wants it. </div>
<div>So it gives me great pleasure to answer this Q.</div>
<p></p>
<div> What is the difference between science and other fields that makes science so special? </div>
<div>I have already answered this Q several times (3). Let me give one more reason now.</div>
<div>Sometime back a story writer of movies and TV serials wrote about science in one of her stories. It was a mixture of misrepresentation of science and glorifying pseudo-science. It 's not even science fiction to tolerate it. Naturally when I come across such things, I get annoyed. Most scientists do! What do these writers want to convey to the general public with such distortions of science? </div>
<div>So I said two lines criticizing it on a social media site. </div>
<div>This serial story is very popular among the public. People worship the hero and heroine of the story like a God and a Goddess. That screws their minds and makes them blind and mindless. </div>
<div>So they didn't see the difference between criticizing the handling of science in the story and onslaught on their 'Gods'. They thought I was attacking their hero.</div>
<div>So these people started rebuking me. It was just a cool me against about 10 very emotionally charged people. But I knew I was right. Factually right. So this 30 minute war of words (between science knowledge vs ignorance) was leading towards a science's triumph. </div>
<div>Then one of the fighters used their last weapon. She said, " You seem to have a lot of knowledge about science. But do you know who URK ( one of the people who was fighting with me) is? She is the writer of this story!"</div>
<div>I didn't know I unintentionally attracted her attention and pulled even the famous writer of the story with my genuine facts into this war of words. </div>
<div>But what made me smile at that moment was these factors </div>
<div>1. The writer of the story accepted she didn't know much about science - although she argued with me that she was right - by saying she had no time to 'argue' even though she wanted to continue with it despite continuing the fight!</div>
<div>2. The moment people use their 'do you know who we are?' weapon, I know they lost the war.</div>
<div>3. When people are fighting with genuine science, they don't stand a chance of winning provided the person who is using this weapon knows how to handle it perfectly. </div>
<div>So I said calmly, 'No, I didn't know that. So what? That doesn't make any difference to me. I don't care who is on the other side. Even if I had known who she was in the beginning itself, I would have said the same things". </div>
<div>This enraged the writer. Did you say 'So what?" , she asked. </div>
<div>"Yes, I did", I said, again gently, despite knowing fully well that most writers, artists, actors, singers, sports persons, politicians and several other celebrities expect automatic worship, admiration, dedication, praise and mostly a "yes, sir" when they say or do something from the general public. I also know that if they don't get it, they get very annoyed. </div>
<div>So this writer (and her followers) expected me to apologize and accept that she was right despite being wrong just because she's a popular person (and they didn't know who I was because I don't use weak weapons).</div>
<div>But science doesn't allow such things. Even if Einstein says Astrology is genuine science, we will attack him in the scientific world mercilessly and bring him back to his senses. That is the difference between the scientific world and the other ones. We give importance to evidence based facts here, not people. </div>
<div>Just because Trump says global warming is not happening, we will not say, "Yes , sir". </div>
<div>We will say, "Trump, the US president, said that? So what? He is wrong. Here is our evidence."</div>
<div>Just because your handsome hero says something wrong about science or the writer of the story promotes pseudo-science we will not accept it in the world of science, sorry folks.</div>
<p></p>
<div>Also, writers, poets, artists and actors ( a part of the general public too) say love and other emotions are beyond science. They think Science cannot understand them. If you write stories strictly following science that doesn't appeal to the general public. Physics, Chemistry and Biology cannot be depicted correctly while dealing with emotions and love. There will be twisting and spinning. So they usually<span> sacrifice science for sensationalism, and their work is riddled with errors. And they say s</span>cientists shouldn't object to it. </div>
<p></p>
<div>If I say this is said by people who don't understand science properly and - most importantly - by those who don't know how to sculpt science in an attractive way to engage people's attention?</div>
<div>These people don't know how to depict reality as it is and therefore create a pseudo-world. That is misleading people very badly and as a result the general public is failing to differentiate between genuine science and pseudo-science .</div>
<div>Some writers also think raw science is 'unsightly' and cannot captivate curiosity, consideration and concentration of the layman.</div>
<div>So they try to cover the biochemistry of emotions with a makeup called 'love'. Or lust, <span>admiration, adoration, aesthetic appreciation, amusement, anger, anxiety, awe, awkwardness, boredom, calmness, confusion, craving, disgust, empathy, pain, entrancement, excitement, fear, horror, interest, joy, nostalgia, relief, romance, sadness, satisfaction, desire, surprise, </span><span>contempt, contentment, disappointment, distress, jealousy, ecstasy, elation, irrationality, embarrassment, interest,</span> <span>realization. </span></div>
<div><span>Okay, one can twist the science a bit or give it a spin in the arts arena but not so much as to completely mislead the public that these emotions are absolutely beyond science or have nothing to do with science. </span></div>
<div><span>Because these emotions are entirely based on science and depend on the biochemistry of organisms. </span></div>
<p></p>
<div><span>One of my colleagues who was watching all this silently told me yesterday, "Krishna, now prove these people wrong. Write a story with raw science as its theme and show people how that can be carved charmingly without using any cosmetics. It is a challenge from the art world to the scientific world. Do you accept it?"</span></div>
<div><span>I got orders from our Field Marshal. </span></div>
<div><span>Now I know I will have to save my first love. A true soldier cannot say no to the </span><span>OPORD* and refuse to follow the orders.</span></div>
<div><span> Won't I accept it? </span></div>
<div><span>It takes time because of my busy life. But it will be done! My brain has already entered a creative mode. I am putting on my uniform. </span></div>
<p></p>
<div><span>***************</span></div>
<p></p>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>* </span><span>OPORDs are published for a specific mission, typically some type of operational mission. They are in a five paragraph format, to include the task organization, situation, mission, execution, service & support, and command/signal. An OPORD always specify a date and time for execution. They are typically written, but can also be done verbally or even handwritten. The more complex the mission, the more complex the OPORD. Most OPORDs are published by the commander, but created by the S3 section (2).</span></div>
<blockquote><div>An <span>Operations Order</span>, often abbreviated to <span>OPORD</span>, is a plan format meant to assist subordinate units with the conduct of <span>military</span> operations.</div>
<p>An operation order (<span>OPORD</span>) <span>is</span> a directive issued by the leader to his subordinate leaders in order to effect the coordinated execution of a specific operation. A five-paragraph format <span>is</span> used to organize the briefing, to ensure completeness, and to help subordinate leaders understand and follow the order.</p>
</blockquote>
<div><span>Footnotes: </span></div>
<div><span>1. </span><a href="https://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/how-science-explains-love">https://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/how-science-explains-love</a></div>
<div>2. <a href="https://www.part-time-commander.com/types-of-army-orders/">https://www.part-time-commander.com/types-of-army-orders/</a></div>
<div>3. <a href="https://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum">https://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Science should dominate science-art, not art!
tag:kkartlab.in,2022-05-16:2816864:BlogPost:241879
2022-05-16T05:30:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Q: Without learning anything how could you paint pictures? How can we paint pictures?</p>
<p>Krishna: I think most children would paint something in their schools. They learn the basics when they are children.</p>
<p>After this initial training, if you want to pursue art, you can go for more advanced courses.</p>
<p>If you don't want to go after art, I think that basic knowledge is enough.</p>
<p>Then for a scientist, it is not necessary to paint pictures extraordinarily. My main aim is…</p>
<p>Q: Without learning anything how could you paint pictures? How can we paint pictures?</p>
<p>Krishna: I think most children would paint something in their schools. They learn the basics when they are children.</p>
<p>After this initial training, if you want to pursue art, you can go for more advanced courses.</p>
<p>If you don't want to go after art, I think that basic knowledge is enough.</p>
<p>Then for a scientist, it is not necessary to paint pictures extraordinarily. My main aim is science communication. Science is more important than art in my paintings. </p>
<p>So I never bothered about shades, colours or composition. Only the themes 're important to me. </p>
<p>Artists might not agree my paintings are great but scientists think they are! :)</p>
<p>Once I organized a show. Several artists too came along with scientists to see my work. </p>
<p>One artist critically analysed all my paintings. "This item should be painted here, not there".</p>
<p>"You should have used a lighter shade there". "You have used more brush strokes here".</p>
<p>"You should have done this"; "You should have done that" .... blah, blah, blah, blah.</p>
<p>After half-an-hour of his lecture, I told him, "So you agree my science beat your art? Because common people are seeing science in these pictures, not art. Had art dominated, my science themes would have lost their relevance and importance. I achieved my aim. Thank you for confirming this".</p>
<p>The artist was speechless.</p>
<p>If art dominates science themes, people don't get the exact message we want to convey. Just enough art is sufficient to communicate science effectively. There is no need for a 'master'.</p>
<p>While painting science, think about only science, not art, and this attitude makes science communication through art easy and simple.</p>
READING PARALLEL ARTS: SCIENCE INSPIRED ART IN CONTEMPORARY ERA
tag:kkartlab.in,2020-03-14:2816864:BlogPost:160379
2020-03-14T05:08:20.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p></p>
<div><h1>READING PARALLEL ARTS: SCIENCE INSPIRED ART IN CONTEMPORARY ERA</h1>
<ul>
<li><a>Posted by<span> </span></a><a href="http://kkartlab.in/profile/TanujaKMunakala" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span class="il">Tanuja</span><span> </span>K.<span> </span><span class="il">Munakala</span></a><a><span> </span>on January 6, 2016 at 2:30pm…</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<p></p>
<div><h1>READING PARALLEL ARTS: SCIENCE INSPIRED ART IN CONTEMPORARY ERA</h1>
<ul>
<li><a>Posted by<span> </span></a><a href="http://kkartlab.in/profile/TanujaKMunakala" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="il">Tanuja</span><span> </span>K.<span> </span><span class="il">Munakala</span></a><a><span> </span>on January 6, 2016 at 2:30pm</a></li>
<li><a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/message/newFromProfile?screenName=2jax3yjv44rbo&target=http%3A%2F%2Fkkartlab.in%2Fprofiles%2Fblogs%2Freading-parallel-arts-science-inspired-art-in-contemporary-era-2%3FcommentId%3D2816864%253AComment%253A135482%26xg_source%3Dmsg_com_blogpost" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Send Message</a><a><span> </span> <span> </span></a><a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blog/list?user=2jax3yjv44rbo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">View Blog</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>I am<span> </span><span class="il">Tanuja</span><span> </span>K.<span> </span><span class="il">Munakala</span>, I recently completed my BFA in painting, and as part of the dissertation, I chose the topic: ‘Reading Parallel Arts: Science Inspired Art In Contemporary Era’. It's based on Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa's science-art work.</p>
<p>I would like to thank Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa for sharing her views on this subject and also for permitting me to include her observations in this dissertation. She took time out in spite of her busy schedule and answered all my questions on this topic. Her articles assisted me in writing my thesis.</p>
<p>My dissertation is a broad insight into ‘Science inspired art’. I covered aspects such as – The History of ‘Science inspired art’, Contemporary Scene of ‘Science inspired art’ around the world and with a detailed section on the ‘science inspired art’ scenario in India with Dr. Challa's work as the main aspect.</p>
<p> I have posted the preface to the dissertation along with the interview of Dr. Krishna Kumari for your reading.</p>
<p>You may contact me at<span> </span><a rel="nofollow noopener" href="mailto:tmunakala@yahoo.com" target="_blank">tmunakala@yahoo.com</a><span> </span>if you wish to view the complete text or any other of my other art work.</p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p align="center"><b>READING PARALLEL ARTS:</b></p>
<p align="center"><b>SCIENCE INSPIRED ART IN CONTEMPORARY ERA</b></p>
<p align="center"><strong>BY</strong></p>
<p align="center"> <b><span class="il">TANUJA</span><span> </span>K.<span> </span><span class="il">MUNAKALA</span></b></p>
<div><p>Apart from being passionate about art, I am interested in life sciences as well and keep an eye on any new discoveries or inventions taking place in this field. If scientists discover a new insect or find a cure for some disease, it excites me.</p>
<p>The main objective of this dissertation is to understand how I can integrate science into art to create a visually effective expression of societal issues with a purpose of bringing in a rational perspective. The objective is also to bring in awareness about this amazing art form which is practiced and respected very well in countries other than India. This dissertation gives an insight into how this parallel art has influenced artists in the past, and the exciting work being done in this contemporary era around the world. This dissertation also looks into the purpose of choosing this genre by the contemporary artists. A brief analysis of the artists, their work, along with reasons and measures for improving the state of ‘science inspired art’ in India, are also included.</p>
<p> In order to complete the dissertation, I had searched for the information available on the internet as information in the form of books was hard to find. Information about India was provided by the artist working in this field in addition to the articles available on the internet.</p>
<p>As this field is vast, this dissertation gives only an insight into the activities happening in this field, which gives an understanding to the artists interested in pursuing this genre and does not go deep into the scientific explanations.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b>CHAPTER III </b><span> </span> <b>CONTEMPORARY SCENE OF ‘SCIENCE INSPIRED ART’ IN INDIA</b></p>
<p>In India, ‘science inspired art’ activities are miniscule. The interactions between art and science were very poor till recently but a little activity is being observed presently. Majority of the art fraternity is aware of Kinetic art, optical art and Art created using Technology such as digital art, video or botanical illustrations which are mainly for academic purposes, but the genre of ‘science inspired art’ is still new to India.</p>
<p>Some of the artists who are working in this field and activities going on in India are given below.</p>
<p><b>1</b><b>1.1 </b><span> </span><b>CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE ARTISTS IN INDIA</b></p>
<p><b> </b><b>Dr. KRISHNA KUMARI CHALLA</b></p>
<p><b><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714774?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/o7XzNthAyKHUHadogCstimcDSKBh6pIjmpEAogzWwrMHQO-_zZKXUR-NdvQHDFV9w0QNPGFK8gwS7BMIE9ZHffPsafy_CbW3seQ1FMOmHV2rN3xTvLvfVfqnvayQQ6iTQ5AVdsmtwmKe4i2wGLrkAx04jMkdjfbv97MMgMSYmJbgqLx9k_8DV1uqMS1ztnZrqlwRsZZAQqV1YblMJg5gHuRVETriX4eBw62HsTlm=s0-d-e1-ft#http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714774?profile=original" width="184" class="CToWUd"/></a></b></p>
<p>Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa is a scientist, artist, writer, poet, activist and a network creator. She explores the relationship between Art, Literature and Science on her network, Sci-Art Lab. She communicates science through art and literature. She did one solo exhibition, “Cosmic Show of Science”, in Hyderabad, India in 2008, group shows in Hyderabad, Kolkata, Jodhpur, Goa and Jaipur in India in 2009, and a group show in Copenhagen (Denmark) in 2010. She participated in Izmir Biennial in May 2011 (Turkey) and in a group show in Italy along with Italian artists in the first week of March, 2011. She also participated in the first international science-art conference in Moscow in 2012 and exhibited her works. </p>
<p>Dr. Challa writes stories and poems too, she mainly writes on science, science-art-literature relationships, science-literature and science-art for her network. She is running a Science Art Blog, where you can watch videos and read some of her articles, blogs, poems and discussions on her network <a rel="nofollow noopener" href="http://www.kkartlab.in/" target="_blank">http://www.kkartlab.in</a>.</p>
<p>She founded a network called SCI –ART LAB, which is an abode of science, art, literature interactions. Science communication through art and literature and other innovative methods, creative technologies, science – art collaborations, science based art, projects based on art – science/technology relationships, art-literature, science literature and the interplays at the confluence of science, art and literature.</p>
<p>There are more than 1200 members who chose different groups as per their interest. There is a dedicated group for science based art with members from all over the world sharing and interacting with each other.</p>
<p>Some of Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa’s Artwork. (Credit:<span> </span><a href="http://kkartfromscience.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">kkartfromscience.com</a>)</p>
<p align="center">Cosmic show of science</p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714860?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/aev3pw0hHpNunJ7oawbis4DiEUB8_g3IGoeWp-gmOLGVaP0tND2Jj2E1KhgfCGU06yhQBqy50jzG-tC0ZuNZdTn-EoDUT0rg_izDwV8hg4UopGwKoYL3DU8zRabZKBe60cWdPGpWZED6eDYFiHWF8GsSb6kqE3YLSwwN5Dem_kiLPf_eTVeUhOt8vAxIF7cXOuUkzB49E8aegddzmjI7Qf0=s0-d-e1-ft#http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714860?profile=original" width="500" class="CToWUd"/></a></p>
<p align="center">29x19.6’’, oil & acrylic on canvas, 2008</p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714879?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/msqmnyvatuE2sdMO3Keq7-B9-TDyLuu4s7viVqA5NxyeONKPTsGAzAvJfF60gssKSvyplldhoN-cZu67J7-acq5mOszFAaqj8EWiGYlUN3V6NxoySH3HWGZABpl-UspvsAYQGLmawTY9gwM9tzsWfNEIsfmqCa87egci2ujhDJLpR_MBu7r0xC4LVGNbfxkXDnqzyRxGpQS0YlRS4CikZHs=s0-d-e1-ft#http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714879?profile=original" width="542" class="CToWUd"/></a></p>
<p align="center">31’’x20’’, oil & Acrylic on canvas, 2008</p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714891?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/iixoClwFhLJYF4zGnmMHF7K-PXFYyeoBuKc3HY0MuCqzNpaTI0ZjmpcNTEvn12als9rhQjQoNeeWFoCfPKUGhZ635lz9IlKXga2RaDh2RU2L5oz23gTe8ZjCIPrDFeHIP_IKs34AWQfei_cyGZpOKCEH2_7J1eitoZMsQiCPQ_lEf9IKLwqCD3x8hmS7D0W-38om0lhw84Id59UFUD_KFZCugUVfMw=s0-d-e1-ft#http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714891?profile=original" width="337" class="CToWUd"/></a></p>
<p align="center">Universal Science, 18x23”, acrylic on canvas, 2011</p>
<p><b>Interview of Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa (K.C): </b></p>
<p>Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa had been too gracious to answer all my questions regarding ‘science inspired art’, her journey as scientist and artist and her analysis and suggestions.</p>
<p><b>1</b>.<span> </span><b>Even today, there are a very few artists who are doing science based/inspired artwork in India. What made you to choose this field?</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>Well, I wanted to communicate science. What better way can even a child or an illiterate person understand it other than through art? </p>
<p>Another reason is when you are from a particular field, when you eat, sleep, breathe, think, defend, write, communicate and live it, you naturally paint it too!</p>
<p><b>2. What is the main objective of creating this kind of Artwork</b>? </p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>Science communication pure and simple.</p>
<p><b>3. What medium do you choose and is there any particular reason for choosing the same?</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>In the beginning I used oil paints, because they are easy to handle for untrained artists like me. Later on I experimented with several other media too. </p>
<p><b>4. You have also looked towards philosophy and mythology in relation to science in your work. How do you approach your work? Do you first pick up any scientific theory and try to find similarities in mythology and philosophy, or is it the other way round?</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>How to deal with the roles of religion and cultural conditioning of minds while communicating science is what is bothering people of science like us. Educating whole families, groups, educationists themselves can get the desired results rather than targeting isolated individuals. This is because psychologists found that simply preaching the message of evidence doesn’t persuade people. The strongest opposition to climate change theory comes from people who have a good general understanding of science, but also a cultural antipathy to modern climate theory. And that the issue wasn’t knowledge, but culture. If people belong to a group — such as a religious group whose members reject evolution — then members of the group will value that sense of belonging more highly than scientific evidence. The key to success is not to disentangle the science message from the cultural baggage, from their feeling of who and what they are as individuals. In other words, finding neutral language is a key, and so is a common context.</p>
<p>By affirming rather than denigrating countries' cultural identities, we can achieve more success. In this context I want to tell how I am dealing with this problem. Please look at my art work <u>"Sacred Life"</u>. I used both traditional art that denotes our culture and religious beliefs to spread the message of conservation. Everybody who saw my work here approved it whole-heartedly and embraced the idea. And not even one person criticized my work till now!</p>
<p>First I choose a science theme. Then I try to connect it with religion and culture I was born into for the message to hit the bull's eye.</p>
<p><b>5. Any project that you start as a scientist, do you simultaneously create artwork based on that?</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>‘Culturizing Science’ is an extremely difficult thing to do. Connecting two – five different subjects (science, art, literature, theology, philosophy) using a single theme eats your brain like a termite eats wood. You will face hundreds of deaths! Because science is mainly based on facts and other subjects on fiction, beliefs, personal views, metaphors and intuitions that science finds difficult to accept.</p>
<p>If you are just creating works to show aesthetics of science like most people who deal with science around the world are doing right now, it is very easy.</p>
<p>But while communicating science, balancing science and art is extremely important. It is like a tight rope walk over a deep valley! You cannot just pick a science theme and create ‘real art work’ based on it.</p>
<p>So, ‘no’ is my answer to your question. Only if I can connect a science theme with art in a proper manner, I will go ahead with my work.</p>
<p><b>6. Have you done any collaborative work with other scientists and artists?</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>No. Mainly because of the difficulties involved. My goals are different from the ones of others. Although several people have shown interest in collaborating with me, I couldn't get time to go ahead with the projects.</p>
<p>I am an extremely busy person and work according to my convenience.</p>
<p><b>7. There is exciting work being done outside of India. Why do you think there is hardly any science-based art scene in India? I did read the article you wrote about Asian and Indian scenario. I would like to know if you see any change today from the time you wrote that article.</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>No, absolutely none whatsoever! People here still find it difficult to connect science with art.</p>
<p><b>8. Could you suggest a few Indian and overseas artists and scientists who are</b><span> </span><b>working in the genre?</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>You will find several of them in the group "Science based art" on Sci-Art Lab. You have to join it to read the articles. This group is closed as I am writing a book on the subject now.</p>
<p><b>9. What do you think about the art scene for this genre in Hyderabad?</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>Apart from me there is another artist - a dancer - who collaborates with a neuro- surgeon. She gave programs based on 'neural mechanics' but when I contacted her and asked her how she approaches science, like what dance mudras and steps she uses to convey science messages, she couldn't give me a reply. I found this strange. When you are using science themes, I think there should be clarity both in thought and presentation. Otherwise how would people understand the messages you are conveying?</p>
<p><b>10. How is the response for your Work both in India and overseas?</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>There is tremendous response for my science based art from people all over the world. However, I must add that in India people still don't understand it in the way it should be understood. </p>
<p><b>11. What are your on-going and future projects?</b><b> </b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>There are many plans but I will go ahead with them only when I find time and if and when I get some sponsors.</p>
<p><b>12. What is your opinion about the future for Science-based Art in India? What suggestions can you give to the aspirants who would like to choose this genre?</b></p>
<p><b>K.C:</b><span> </span>Our country is a bit slow in accepting things that are 'novel', 'major' and 'futuristic' - especially if they are associated with a subject that depends a lot on grey matter.</p>
<p>One should have tremendous patience, will-power and courage to withstand a slow and difficult process. One should also have deep love and understanding for a subject like science. Only if an artist thinks she/he has these qualities, she/he should enter the arena.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p>
<p>I have been enlightened with the fact that art itself is a powerful medium and when science and art merge, it creates wonders and has a bigger impact on society at large.</p>
<p>Art can do something that is much harder to achieve through science alone. In a culturally diverse country with a majority of young people like India, inculcating scientific temperament is the key to bringing rational thinking, tolerance, understanding and peace. Art is a very strong and effective medium to bring in that change.</p>
<p><b>MY ART WORK </b></p>
<p>One of my ‘science inspired art’ works.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714957?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img width="750" src="https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/mP8Jmo7ak_U3oGQYzs0WJ0HFmD-thaD0dEX37H447i1WfuMTQ0rJH9IrmjQsdqVAIde92XA_OdJym-ZE3jrH0A0Sm2K4Vh-5tqz0UBDG4BV6WNsE2U16drUFT-fLGUnMbYM85UpPE2-2m37ZUCe2Yi1UrFM_BFUxUFsqxfBBSTedSo1FTuFzoTtXoqxaJT9cBFleegIyLf1w85s1yi046fCaAcgA6y1T=s0-d-e1-ft#http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/4495714957?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" height="617" width="480" class="CToWUd"/></a>This is us! Drypoint Etching</p>
<p> Through this work, I am trying to say that in our society everybody is busy to outsmart each other to prove their superiority which is so superficial. In reality, whether it is a unicellular organism or a multicellular human, nature, (read God) created us to play our part. Nothing is big, nothing is small. Everything, if broken down, is made of cells, and DNA is life.</p>
Another story: Difference between an artist and a scientist
tag:kkartlab.in,2016-11-01:2816864:BlogPost:142689
2016-11-01T05:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p class="qtext_para">People say there is no difference in thinking between artists and scientists. But recently I read an interesting story that confirms the different thinking ways between a scientist and an artist ... It is about Einstein and his wife who was a poet...</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Frau Einstein was Albert Einstein’s wife. She was a poet, and Albert Einstein was perhaps one of the greatest scientific thinker of all the ages. Naturally Frau Einstein wanted her husband to know…</p>
<p class="qtext_para">People say there is no difference in thinking between artists and scientists. But recently I read an interesting story that confirms the different thinking ways between a scientist and an artist ... It is about Einstein and his wife who was a poet...</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Frau Einstein was Albert Einstein’s wife. She was a poet, and Albert Einstein was perhaps one of the greatest scientific thinker of all the ages. Naturally Frau Einstein wanted her husband to know about her poetry. Einstein tried to avoid the subject as much as he could, but finally one night, the full moon in the sky, Frau Einstein could not resist the temptation. She had composed a beautiful poem about the full moon, and she recited the poem.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Albert Einstein looked at her with great surprise, almost shocked. She could not understand, “Why is he looking at me in this weird manner? At the most he can say that the poetry is not great, but he is looking at me as if I am insane!” After the recital of the poem she asked Albert Einstein, “What do you think?”</p>
<p class="qtext_para">He said, “I had never thought that you are so crazy. You talk about the moon as beautiful, you talk about the moon reminding you of your beloved. It is sheer nonsense! The moon is too big, it cannot be substituted for your beloved. And the moon is not at all beautiful! It is just as ordinary as the earth, even more ordinary because there is no greenery, no water, just barren land. And the light that you see reflected from the moon is not its own. That light is borrowed from the sun, it is not coming from the moon. The sunlight falls on the moon and the rays are reflected back, and those reflected rays are coming to your eyes; the moon is not the source of them. I had always thought that you are well educated, but you don't know even the <i>ABC</i> of physics!”</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Now was the chance for Frau Einstein to look at him as if he is insane, because for centuries poets have sung songs about the moon – its beauty, its tremendous magnetic force, its cool light. It has a certain hypnotic spell on the heart…and it is now also proved by facts that it has a certain hypnotic spell.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">But a physicist, a mathematician will not be able to understand it – and Frau Einstein never again mentioned poetry to Albert Einstein in her whole life. Although she went on composing, she was not publishing them. It was decided on the first recital that that kind of dialogue was not possible with her husband – but it is not any exceptional case.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">She said: He listened to my poems as if he were a stone statue and not a human being. There were no emotions at all. He dealt with reason and I with emotions. There is lot of difference in our dealings. So I decided I would never recite my poems again to him in my life ( Ref. 1).</p>
<p class="qtext_para">SO?</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span>Although the story says something about the thinking ways of artists and scientists, it may not be wholly true, because Einstein loved poems, he had all volumes of Goethe’s comprehensive work in his study room, and he liked to write little poems himself all his life!</span></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span>But as scientists really differ in their thinking and cannot relate themselves very well to fiction, metaphors and dreaming, t</span>hey prefer to deal with facts.</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span>Here are a few poems attributed to Einstein (Ref. 2):</span></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span><em><strong>Relativity and the "Physics" of Love</strong></em><br/> <br/> <span>Sit next to a pretty girl for an hour, </span><br/> <span>it seems like a minute. </span><br/> <span>Sit on a red-hot stove for a minute, </span><br/> <span>it seems like an hour. </span><br/> <span>That's relativity!</span><br/> <br/> <span>Oh, it should be possible </span><br/> <span>to explain the laws of physics </span><br/> <span>to a barmaid! . . .</span><br/> <span>but how could she ever,</span><br/> <span>in a million years,</span><br/> <span>explain love to an Einstein?</span><br/> <br/> <span>All these primary impulses, </span><br/> <span>not easily described in words, </span><br/> <span>are the springboards </span><br/> <span>of man's actions—because</span><br/> <span>any man who can drive safely </span><br/> <span>while kissing a pretty girl </span><br/> <span>is simply not giving the kiss </span><br/> <span>the attention it deserves!</span><br/></span></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span><em><strong>Research</strong></em><br/> <br/> <span>I used to go away for weeks in a state of confusion.</span><br/> <span>Now I think and think for months and years. </span><br/> <span>Ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. </span><br/> <span>The hundredth time I am right.</span><br/> <span>But I never think of the future—</span><br/> <span>that comes soon enough.</span><br/> <br/> <span>Learn from yesterday,</span><br/> <span>live for today,</span><br/> <span>hope for tomorrow.</span><br/> <span>The important thing is never</span><br/> <span>to stop questioning.</span><br/> <em>Never lose a holy curiosity.</em><br/> <br/> <span>It is a miracle that curiosity</span><br/> <span>survives formal education</span><br/> <span>and yet it is the supreme art</span><br/> <span>of the teacher to awaken joy</span><br/> <span>in creative expression </span><br/> <span>and knowledge.</span><br/> <br/> <span>Still, it sometimes seems</span><br/> <span>that "education" is what remains</span><br/> <span>after one has forgotten</span><br/> <span>everything he learned in school,</span><br/> <span>and the only thing that interferes </span><br/> <span>with my learning is my education.</span><br/> <br/> <span>But always remember that all that is valuable in human society </span><br/> <span>depends upon the opportunity for development accorded the individual!</span><br/> <br/> <span>If you are out to describe the truth, </span><br/> <span>leave elegance to the tailor . . .</span><br/> <span>and yet</span><br/> <span>if you can't explain it simply, </span><br/> <span>you don't understand it.</span><br/> <span>Still, if we knew what it was we were doing, </span><br/> <span>it wouldn't be called "research,"</span><br/> <span>would it?</span></span></p>
<p class="qtext_para"></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><em><strong>New Math</strong></em><br/> <br/> <span>Concern for man and his fate </span><br/> <span>must always form the chief interest </span><br/> <span>of all technical endeavors. </span><br/> <span>Never forget this </span><br/> <span>in the midst of your diagrams </span><br/> <span>and equations.</span><br/> <span>Yet never over-worry </span><br/> <span>about your difficulties </span><br/> <span>in Mathematics. </span><br/> <span>I can assure you mine are still greater!</span></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span><br/> <em><strong>Solitude</strong></em><br/> <br/> <span>Solitude is painful </span><br/> <span>when one is young, </span><br/> <span>but delightful </span><br/> <span>when one is more mature.</span><br/> <span>I live in that solitude </span><br/> <span>which was painful in my youth, </span><br/> <span>but seems delicious now,</span><br/> <span>in the years of my maturity.</span><br/> <br/> <span>Now it gives me great pleasure, indeed,</span><br/> <span>to see the stubbornness </span><br/> <span>of an incorrigible nonconformist </span><br/> <span>so warmly acclaimed . . .</span><br/> <span>and yet it seems vastly strange </span><br/> <span>to be known so universally </span><br/> <span>and yet be so lonely.</span><br/> <br/> <em><strong>Morality</strong></em><br/> <br/> <span>Still, as far as I'm concerned, </span><br/> <span>I prefer silent vice </span><br/> <span>to ostentatious virtue:</span><br/> <span>I don't know, </span><br/> <span>I don't care, </span><br/> <span>and it doesn't make any difference!</span><br/> <br/> <em><strong>Against Hubris</strong></em><br/> <br/> <span>Science without religion is lame,</span><br/> <span>religion without science is blind,</span><br/> <span>and whoever undertakes to establish himself</span><br/> <span>as the judge of Truth and Knowledge </span><br/> <span>is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.</span><br/> <br/> <em><strong>War and Peace</strong></em><br/> <br/> <span>But heroism on command, </span><br/> <span>senseless violence, </span><br/> <span>and all the loathsome nonsense </span><br/> <span>that goes by the name of patriotism:</span><br/> <span>how passionately I hate them!</span><br/> <span>Perfection of means </span><br/> <span>and confusion of ends </span><br/> <span>seem to characterize our age</span><br/> <span>and it has become appallingly obvious </span><br/> <span>that our technology </span><br/> <span>has exceeded our humanity,</span><br/> <span>that technological progress </span><br/> <span>is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal,</span><br/> <span>and that the attempt to combine wisdom and power </span><br/> <span>has only rarely been successful </span><br/> <span>and then only for a short while.</span><br/> <br/> <span>It is my conviction </span><br/> <span>that killing under the cloak of war </span><br/> <span>is nothing but an act of murder.</span><br/> <span>(I do not know what weapons </span><br/> <span>World War III will be fought with, </span><br/> <span>but World War IV will be fought </span><br/> <span>with sticks and stones.)</span><br/> <br/> <i>Oh, how I wish that somewhere </i><br/> <i>there existed an island </i><br/> <i>for those who are wise </i><br/> <i>and of goodwill! . . .</i><br/> <br/> <span>In such a place even I </span><br/> <span>would be an ardent patriot,</span><br/> <span>for I am not only a pacifist,</span><br/> <span>but a militant pacifist. </span><br/> <span>I am willing to fight for peace,</span><br/> <span>for nothing will end war </span><br/> <span>unless the people themselves </span><br/> <span>refuse to go to war.</span><br/> <br/> <span>Our task must be to free ourselves </span><br/> <span>by widening our circle of compassion </span><br/> <span>to embrace all living creatures </span><br/> <span>and the whole of nature and its beauty.</span><br/> <span>And peace cannot be kept by force; </span><br/> <span>it can only be achieved by understanding.</span><br/> <br/> <strong><em>Mystery</em></strong><br/> <br/> <span>There are two ways to live your life—</span><br/> <span>one is as though nothing is a miracle, </span><br/> <span>the other is as though everything is a miracle.</span><br/> <span>The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious: </span><br/> <span>it is the source of all true art and all science.</span><br/> <span>He to whom this emotion is a stranger, </span><br/> <span>who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, </span><br/> <span>is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.</span><br/> <br/> <strong><em>Curiosity</em></strong><em><br/></em> <br/> <span>The important thing is not to stop questioning. </span><br/> <span>Curiosity has its own reason for existing. </span><br/> <span>One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, </span><br/> <span>of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. </span><br/> <span>It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. </span><em><br/> Never lose a holy curiosity.</em><br/> <br/> <span>People do not grow old no matter how long we live. </span><br/> <span>We never cease to stand like curious children </span><br/> <span>before the great Mystery into which we were born.</span><br/> <br/> <strong><em>Character</em></strong><br/> <br/> <span>Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds</span><br/> <span>because anger dwells only in the bosom of fools</span><br/> <span>and weakness of attitude soon becomes weakness of character.</span><br/> <span>Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity (and I'm not sure about the former);</span><br/> <span>furthermore, we can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.</span><br/> <span>The world is a dangerous place: not just because of the people who are evil, </span><br/> <span>but also because of the good people who don't do anything about it.</span><br/> <span>He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt:</span><br/> <span>he has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.</span></span></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span><span>References:</span></span></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span><span>1. <a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CQ4NP-LLL30C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=Who+was+Frau+Einstein&source=bl&ots=kOUZiohhm9&sig=hjVDbJRGdJQlGINIS4ehejxNBCE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitu7bU9ojQAhXDu48KHR95C0EQ6AEITzAJ#v=onepage&q=Who%20was%20Frau%20Einstein&f=false">https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CQ4NP-LLL30C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=Who+was+Frau+Einstein&source=bl&ots=kOUZiohhm9&sig=hjVDbJRGdJQlGINIS4ehejxNBCE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitu7bU9ojQAhXDu48KHR95C0EQ6AEITzAJ#v=onepage&q=Who%20was%20Frau%20Einstein&f=false</a></span></span></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span><span>2. <span><a href="http://www.thehypertexts.com/">http://www.thehypertexts.com/</a></span><span>Albert%20Einstein%20Poet%</span><span>20Poetry%20Poems%20Pictures%</span><span>20Bio.htm</span></span></span></p>
How Picasso was wrong
tag:kkartlab.in,2016-04-11:2816864:BlogPost:137882
2016-04-11T08:30:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Just now I read a Picasso Quote. It goes like this: The genius of Einstein leads to Hiroshimas.</p>
<p>What a misconception! And most of the time artists who cannot understand the importance of science and how it works say such silly things.</p>
<p>Einstein himself didn't approve Hiroshima and criticized it severely (1).</p>
<p><span>In 1905 Einstein had published his revolutionary equation showing that matter and energy were equivalent and interconvertible. There was much speculation by…</span></p>
<p>Just now I read a Picasso Quote. It goes like this: The genius of Einstein leads to Hiroshimas.</p>
<p>What a misconception! And most of the time artists who cannot understand the importance of science and how it works say such silly things.</p>
<p>Einstein himself didn't approve Hiroshima and criticized it severely (1).</p>
<p><span>In 1905 Einstein had published his revolutionary equation showing that matter and energy were equivalent and interconvertible. There was much speculation by scientists on how that atomic power might be released, and, once released, sustained (by what is called a 'chain reaction', on which ordinary fuels and explosives rely). During the 1920s and 1930s many physicists struggled with the problem. Einstein was right: science was international. American, Australian, British, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, New Zealand, Russian, Swiss and Yugoslav scientists between them made the various research breakthroughs needed to show that an atom of uranium could be split by a neutron beam and would readily produce a chain reaction - thus releasing enormous amounts of energy. It only remained to put it to the test. <span>The Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard tried hard to stop publication of the news (which broke in January 1939) that atomic fission was possible: he was afraid that Germany might try to make an atomic bomb if it knew. But the principle that scientific information should be shared was a matter of pride; it was released. </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Then<span> Einstein, sent a letter to the then American president, Franklin Roosevelt. </span><br/> <br/> <span>In his letter Einstein wrote: 'Some recent work leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary quick action....This new phenomenon would also lead to the production of bombs, and it is conceivable that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may be constructed....Some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span>Apart from a second letter written when the advisory board seemed to be dragging their feet, Einstein took no other part in the UK/US study of uranium fission or in the USA's Manhattan Project which created the first atomic bombs. </span></p>
<p><span><span>Einstein also believed that the USA would treat the discovery with respect and would resist actually using the bomb. </span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>In April 1945 Leo Szilard, Physicist and inventor, came to Einstein again, this time to share his deep fear that the USA would start an atomic arms race. Once again Einstein wrote to the President, enclosing a strong warning (written by Szilard) against using the atomic bomb. But the </span><a href="http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/people/pp-einstein3.html#">letter</a><span> was still unopened on Roosevelt's desk when he died. The new president, Harry Truman, was too busy taking office to be accessible, though the scientists tried hard to get through.</span></p>
<p><span><span>The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (not on its military installations but on the civilian center of the city) on August 6 1945. Up to 140,000 people were killed. Thousands were to die much later, of radiation-related diseases: the death toll had reached 192,000 in 1995. When Einstein heard the news, he uttered a cry of anguish. On August 9 a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. It killed 73,884 people outright, and injured 76,769 more; these figures do not include those who died later from radiation.</span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>Einstein said then, 'Just as we use our reason to build a dam to hold a river in check, we must now build institutions to restrain the fears and suspicions and greeds which move people and their rulers....We do not have to wait a million years to use our ability to reason. We can and must use it now, or human society will sink into a new and terrible dark age.'</span><br/> <br/> <span>From then until his death, and despite poor health, Einstein gave all the energies not spent on his scientific work to campaigns for peace.</span></p>
<p><span><span>He opposed the development of atomic weapons and the US military's intention to develop the much more powerful hydrogen bomb. He was chairman of the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, set up in 1946; its aims were to educate the public about the dangers of atomic warfare, to promote the benign use of atomic energy, and to work for the abolition of war as the only answer to weapons of mass destruction. (The ECAS disbanded in 1949, but continued to publish its Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.) Einstein also continued his public opposition to militarism.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Einstein knew <span>that there was no way to stop scientists from pursuing knowledge. 'We must not condemn man because his inventiveness and patient conquest of the forces of nature are exploited for false and destructive purposes.' </span><br/> <br/> <span>'The line of demarcation,' he said, 'doesn't lie between scientists and non-scientists; it lies between responsible, honest people, and the others.' That didn't let off scientists from thinking about the consequences of what they do. 'In our time, scientists and engineers carry a particularly heavy burden of moral responsibility, because the development of military means of mass destruction is dependent on their work.' </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span>"I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan but I could not do anything at all to prevent that fateful decision," Einstein wrote in German to Shinohara, a Japanese woman in a letter dated June 23, 1953.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p>So? How can artists blame scientists for the political decisions taken despite their severe opposition to them?</p>
<p>I created an art work based on this very theme ... THE CHOICE IS YOURS</p>
<p></p>
<p><img src="http://www.kkartfromscience.com/images/art/as10_big.jpg"/></p>
<p></p>
<p align="justify">Some people complain that science also brings with it a few bad things like commercial GM crops, nuclear bombs etc. along with the good it does to the mankind. But according to the scientific community – science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut throats and spill blood. It can also be used for good purposes like cutting fruits and vegetables. It depends on the person who uses it. Likewise science (represented by a test tube in the painting) can also be used for the benefit of living beings as well as for their destruction. Which way it goes is in the hands of the person who uses it. The choice is definitely yours, Homo sapiens.</p>
<p>Artists, and non-scientists get this right: Don't blame the scientists for the bad happening in the world. If you don't know how to use the scientific inventions and discoveries correctly, you have to blame only yourself! </p>
<p>The genius of Einstein didn't cause Hiroshima. A stupid political decision did.</p>
<p>References: </p>
<p><span><span><span>1. <a href="http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/people/pp-einstein4.html">http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/people/pp-einstein4.html</a></span></span></span></p>
<p></p>
Artists, don't try to mislead the world for your personal gains!
tag:kkartlab.in,2016-01-27:2816864:BlogPost:135615
2016-01-27T04:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>This week, the news that is making the cyber world go mad is how an artist with his baseless beliefs trying to mislead the world!</p>
<p>With the headlines like these...</p>
<p></p>
<p>Neil de Grasse Tyson Corrects the Science of … a Rapper’s Flat Earth Theories No art form is safe from scientific critique.<br></br> People stopped believing the Earth was flat 200 years ago. But some artists are still propagating the old theories and their beliefs! Rapper B.o.B took to Twitter on 25th June to…</p>
<p>This week, the news that is making the cyber world go mad is how an artist with his baseless beliefs trying to mislead the world!</p>
<p>With the headlines like these...</p>
<p></p>
<p>Neil de Grasse Tyson Corrects the Science of … a Rapper’s Flat Earth Theories No art form is safe from scientific critique.<br/> People stopped believing the Earth was flat 200 years ago. But some artists are still propagating the old theories and their beliefs! Rapper B.o.B took to Twitter on 25th June to explain why we’re all sheeple who need to wake up (paraphrasing) and realize that the Earth isn’t round—closely following the release of his latest album, FIRE, on the 18th of January. In case you needed a conspiracy theory of your own involving a rapper saying absurd things to draw attention to his music. And his followers started actually believing and supporting him!</p>
<p><br/> Where are we heading?! Backward?!! Toward the 10 the century BC?!!!</p>
<p></p>
<p>And famed astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson took a break from his busy schedule to drop some knowledge on absurd misconceptions. He painstakingly explained things on twitter. <span>Tyson also criticized the “anti-intellectual strain” in society, and finished with a demonstration of gravity by, literally, dropping the mic during a speech on the issue.</span></p>
<p>One of my scientist friends, who is not interested in sci-art and criticizes me all the while for promoting science-art interactions, said this to me after reading the story: I don't understand this. Don't artists have anything else to do better? While we are trying to increase knowledge, bring some sense and harmony and trying to help the world, these artists are trying to undo all that we do. They are wasting our time for their personal gains. And you are working with them. You don't belong here. Go to the art world and live there forever in darkness, ignorance, selfishness and absurdity.</p>
<p>I can understand the scientist's frustration. But still I told him, 'I am into the art world to remove all that negativeness - not to promote it. How can we do it without interacting with artists? It takes time for these people to understand things in the way they should be understood. No doubt, we have to stop our all important work for some time to confront people like this rapper. To stop them spreading misinformation. But it has to be done. And I am trying to do exactly that.</p>
<p>I am fighting a battle in my own way. This is a necessary evil. Science-art has to put science in the right perspective. I am going to make sure it does. Sci-Art Lab has a specific purpose. It is not like other art-science entities. Sci-Art Lab was created to bring some sense into the sci-art movement. To take it in the right direction'.</p>
<p>Here is proof that the Earth isn't flat:</p>
<p><br/><span>1. The sun sets below the horizon, maintaining its size and shape.</span><br/><br/><span>According to most flat-earthers, the sun is a spotlight, rotating in a plane 3000 miles above the earth. Let's make some predictions based on this model:</span></p>
<ul class="bbc_list">
<li>The sun should decrease in size as it rotates away from us in the afternoon.</li>
</ul>
<p><em>Doesn't happen. The sun stays approximately the same size. </em></p>
<ul class="bbc_list">
<li>The sun should not go below 20 degrees from the horizon (based on 3000 miles distance from earth, and 8000 mile diameter of the equator).</li>
</ul>
<p><em>It definitely goes below 20 degrees. In fact, it sinks all the way below 0 degrees. In fact, it is possible to see the sun halfway below the horizon, halfway above the horizon, which should absolutely never be possible.</em></p>
<ul class="bbc_list">
<li>The sun should appear to always curve north as it travels across the sky. (The point about which it rotates)</li>
</ul>
<p><em>This generally happens in the northern hemisphere! Horray! Unfortunately, near the equator, the sun travels in a straight line due west. Bummer. Significantly south of the equator, the sun even curves to the south. Double bummer. </em></p>
<ul class="bbc_list">
<li>If the sun is a flat disc, it should appear elliptical as it travels away from us.</li>
</ul>
<p><em>Doesn't happen. The sun stays perfectly round. </em></p>
<p><br/><span>2. The existence of the South Celestial Pole</span><br/><br/><span>When we are in the Northern Hemisphere, the stars appear to rotate around some point in the North. This is consistent with both a flat earth and spherical earth. Excellent. </span><br/><br/><span>When we are near the Equator, the stars appear to travel due west. Again, this is completely consistent with a spherical earth, but on a flat earth, we would expect the stars to still curve north. What gives?</span><br/><br/><span>As we continue moving into the Southern Hemisphere, the point in the North about which the stars rotate sets below the horizon, and another point about which the stars rotate rises in the South. The farther south we go, the higher this "South Celestial Pole" rises in the sky. Again, this is completely consistent with a spherical earth, but completely unexplainable on a flat earth. </span><br/><br/><span>Some people mention "Celestial Gears" as an explanation for this phenomenon, but I have never seen it actually described. Until there is at least a slightly plausible model explaining the existence of this phenomenon, it is solid evidence against the flat earth model.</span></p>
<p><br/><span>Both of these proofs are easy to verify for yourself. The first requires simple observation of the sun on a clear day, preferably near the ocean so that mountains don't obstruct your view. The second only requires travelling to the Southern Hemisphere (unless you already live there) and observing the stars.</span></p>
<p><span>Read more here:</span></p>
<p><span><a href="http://nerdist.com/8-reasons-we-know-the-earth-isnt-flat/">http://nerdist.com/8-reasons-we-know-the-earth-isnt-flat/</a></span></p>
<p><span>and here: <a href="http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/">http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/</a></span></p>
Different ways scientists and artists view a thing
tag:kkartlab.in,2015-10-28:2816864:BlogPost:132203
2015-10-28T02:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Recently I was told about some "Geology based Art". 'Wonderful', I thought immediately after hearing about it and before viewing the art, 'How artists are contributing to understanding the world of science is really laudable'. Laudable? Only until I saw the actual art work. The moment I saw it my view changed!</p>
<p>Because I was expecting to see a work of art that makes science easy and more interesting. But all that I saw was an artist's point of view. Aesthetics and only beauty of Earth…</p>
<p>Recently I was told about some "Geology based Art". 'Wonderful', I thought immediately after hearing about it and before viewing the art, 'How artists are contributing to understanding the world of science is really laudable'. Laudable? Only until I saw the actual art work. The moment I saw it my view changed!</p>
<p>Because I was expecting to see a work of art that makes science easy and more interesting. But all that I saw was an artist's point of view. Aesthetics and only beauty of Earth contours and nothing else! And how can this be 'a work of science based art'? How can it make people more informative? It just looked like a landscape painting! Geology? Forget it!</p>
<p>If only artists can see more than aesthetics and go beyond the normal. Like how the minerals are contributing to various colours we encounter in the soils and rocks on Earth. How the chemical configurations and orientations are making things unique. You are treading upon years of geological and biological history when you are dealing with these things. When you ignore or leave more than two-thirds of the mystery, what is the point in doing such a story?</p>
<p>Modern microscope technology explores how different environments shape grains of sand into nature's tiny works of art. These grains include shell fragments, a glassy sponge spicule, a green sea urchin spine, a foraminiferan, microscopic shells and various minerals.</p>
<p>Mineral sands originate from the erosion of rock into tiny grains. When granite rock erodes by the forces of wind, rain, ice and multiple freeze-thaw cycles, the angular grains of feldspar, quartz, mica and other minerals are liberated. They are transported to lakes via streams, rivers and glaciers, and on their journey, their original crystal shapes begin become more rounded by the forces of erosion. Many continental beaches have a high percentage of quartz sand grains because quartz survives the forces of erosion longer than other minerals. The pounding surf is responsible for rounding and polishing the rugged quartz grains.</p>
<p>Biological sands tell the story of the living beings that inhabit along the shore lines. Fragments of coral, tube worms, barnacles and sea urchin spines get washed up onto the beach, along with the amazing shells made of calcium minerals.</p>
<p>Green olivine, feldspar, quartz, mica , green epidote are some of the minerals you find.</p>
<div class="partner_series"></div>
<div style="float: left; width: 0px; height: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><img class="ggnoads" src="http://www.livescience.com/52615-stunning-sand-grains-under-the-microscope.html" id="popped_image"/></div>
<table style="width: 1px; border-spacing: 0;" border="0">
<tbody><tr><td><img src="http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/079/258/iFF/sandgrains-5-minerals.jpg?1446053540" alt="mineral grains, microscope photography, sand" style="width: 270px;"/></td>
</tr>
<tr><td style="border: 1px solid lightgray; padding: 10px; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;"><span style="width: auto; float: right; padding: 2px 25px 0px 5px;"> </span> Mineral sands originate from the erosion of rock into tiny grains. Minerals here include pink quartz and green epidote.<br/> <span style="margin-top: 5px; float: left; padding-right: 5px;">Credit: Gary Greenberg</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="article_img_i02"><div style="float: left; width: 100%;"><a style="cursor: pointer;" rel="#custom71122" class="make_big"><img style="width: 540px;" src="http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/071/122/i02/Moore_26349_1.jpg?1413528222" alt="Dryhead agate, nikon small world photo"/></a></div>
</div>
<p>Dryhead agate found in Montana is prized for its richly colored bands. Credit: Douglas Moore</p>
<p>Modern spectral analyses tell us what chemicals the geological formations are made of. These scientific tools are Nature's story tellers. Don't ignore them.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly artists and scientists see things differently. But science artists should be able to go to the level of people of science when they want to tread the paths of science. Don't you agree?</p>
<p></p>
My interview in Interalia Magazine
tag:kkartlab.in,2015-10-15:2816864:BlogPost:131873
2015-10-15T04:07:24.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>My interview in the October issue of Interalia Magazine<br></br> An online magazine dedicated to the interactions between the arts, sciences and consciousness.</p>
<p>“Anything I do should be able to facilitate real progress of the human kind…That is why I consider following science and communicating it as the top most priorities in my life”. Artist, poet, scientist and writer, Krishna Kumari Challa, communicates science through art and literature. In this exclusive interview she discusses her…</p>
<p>My interview in the October issue of Interalia Magazine<br/> An online magazine dedicated to the interactions between the arts, sciences and consciousness.</p>
<p>“Anything I do should be able to facilitate real progress of the human kind…That is why I consider following science and communicating it as the top most priorities in my life”. Artist, poet, scientist and writer, Krishna Kumari Challa, communicates science through art and literature. In this exclusive interview she discusses her art and work.</p>
<p>But it is behind a pay wall.</p>
<p>You can read a part of it here: <a href="http://www.interaliamag.org/">http://www.interaliamag.org/</a></p>
<p>Full interview: <a href="http://www.interaliamag.org/interviews/krishna-kumari-challa/">http://www.interaliamag.org/interviews/krishna-kumari-challa/</a></p>
A new and powerful vision at the confluence of science and art
tag:kkartlab.in,2015-08-31:2816864:BlogPost:130215
2015-08-31T08:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"><div class="boxyPaddingBig">The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry - Bertrand Russell</div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig">And I would like to rewrite the quote : The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone…</div>
</div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"><div class="boxyPaddingBig">The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry - Bertrand Russell</div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig">And I would like to rewrite the quote : The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in science as surely as poetry or any other form of art. And it reaches its zenith at the confluence of science and art.</div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<p>Are you ready for it? And do you have it?</p>
<p>It seems in his poem Lamia, 18th century romantic poet John Keats takes Isaac Newton to task for extending a scientific explanation to the existence of a rainbow.</p>
<p>Keats is known to have bluntly stated that the scientist had “destroyed all poetry of the rainbow by reducing it into a prism”.</p>
<p><span>Poet Edgar Allen Poe continued this condemnation, with his 1829 poem </span><em>Sonnet to Science (1)</em></p>
<p>But Roberts, head of professional development at the Winchester School in Dubai, disagrees with the notion of viewing science independently of the arts. “In my opinion, Newton didn’t do any such thing,” he says. “He just added to our sense of wonder of the rainbow. Understanding the rainbow is refracted light in no way takes away from its beauty and majesty.”</p>
<p>Dr. Sam Illingworth, a lecturer, poet and science communicator says... the more we find out about science, the more we realise what a beautiful and incredible world we live in. The fact that the <a href="http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/parveen/fib_nature.htm">patterns on a pinecone match those of the Fibonacci sequence</a>, or that we can stare back into the void a few seconds after the creation of our Universe is, to me, a beautiful thing.</p>
<p>Yes, and in fact science increases the beauty of anything by contributing more to our understanding. Isn't it wonderful to know how Nature takes the help of science and disperses sun light into seven beautiful colours using the prism of water vapour in the atmosphere? How rainbows come into existence?</p>
<p>Science isn't cold and impersonal and dry and dull. It doesn't delete the mystery out of life. Knowing how something works doesn't make it boring. Quite the contrary! Things are far more fascinating to me since I entered the field of science and started understanding things in a very detailed manner. Nothing seems like it's been torn down. Well, maybe temporarily, while we reduce big bits to easier-to-understand-bits, but we don't leave the pieces lying around after. We put it all back together, and with this new understanding, the thing we're studying becomes far more fascinating than it was before. The truth is more complicated, far stranger, more wonderful than anything our paltry imaginations could come up with. The world without science becomes a substandard one. And science makes me wonder all the while and crave for more and more! Science is a magnet! And art and creativity increase its power and richness more and more!</p>
<p><span>This is the view of scientists: Science is very interesting and extremely exciting! The enchanting charms of this sublime science reveal only to those who have the courage to go deeply into it. And its beauty is revealed to those who have special vision to capture it! </span></p>
<p><span>This inspires you to write poems and create art works too. </span></p>
<div><div>But a<span>rtistic creativity is fundamentally different from scientific creativity. Artist's depend mostly on "their thoughts, ideas, beliefs and personal views" for their work whereas scientists' base their work on natural laws and facts and how to fit their informed ideas into these laws to creatively invent or discover something. The imagination of a scientist is based on reality. A scientist has to get his imagination right to succeed where as the artist need not do it right to move forward. In fact, the inadequacies of artists' imagination are what moves the art world forward! They are not the same like several people think and say. At the basic level some overlapping occurs but as you go deep into the subjects, the differences become very clear and I always wonder why people say both artists and scientists do things in similar ways. I think, people who are experts in only one field try to analyse things in other fields too such illusionary perceptions arise. I will give an example here. When artists, writers and poets look at the moon they see it as a silver ball in the sky and describe it or paint it in this manner. I even read some stories where the crescent moon was described as a jewel in the hair of a God! This thinking reflects in their creativity ( metaphor and fiction). Now scientists think in terms of a rocky, dusty satellite that moves in space around the earth trapped in its gravity field when they think about the moon and they use their creativity to take the help of the gravity of the moon to accelerate space ships or change their course to send them to other planets to save fuel and time - the mechanism is called "gravity assist " ( fact). Artists and poets even blamed scientists for disrupting their romantic ideas about moon by landing on it!</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>(taken from one of my blogs posted on Sci-Art Lab)</span></div>
</div>
<div>So when a scientist writes a poem about science, he or she writes it based on reality and facts if science communication is the aim in writing a poem (my way of doing things). If s/he wants to write like an artist with artistic creativity as the reason to go about it, it will be based on metaphor/fiction. There lies the difference!</div>
<div>Of course you can mix both and write a hybrid too! I wrote one or two hybrid poems. </div>
<div>We have to be very clear about our objective and why we are going for it. </div>
<p></p>
<p>And Keats didn't know how to write poems on prisms! Because he didn't know how it works! Artists and poets who don't know how to create art works with a new vision that delves deeply into the basics of this scientifically created universe will complain and blame scientists.</p>
<p>Here is how you can write poems on the topic:</p>
<div class="tb"><h1 class="nolink">Science-art melody</h1>
</div>
<div class="discussion"><div class="description"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><strong>Follow</strong> Science only in the way a Scientist's mind would <strong>allow</strong></p>
<p><strong>Create</strong> art with an artist's <strong>heart</strong></p>
<p><strong>Balance</strong> art and science to touch everybody's <strong>senses</strong></p>
<p><strong>Culturize</strong> science like the specialists <strong>advise</strong></p>
<p> With</p>
<p><strong>Music</strong> of Science that can create <strong>magic</strong></p>
<p>A <strong>touch</strong> of art only electro-magnetism can <strong>match</strong></p>
<p><strong>Art</strong> and science that can never <strong>part</strong></p>
<p><strong>Whose</strong> appeal has a universal <strong>base</strong></p>
<p> Then</p>
<p><strong>Wondering</strong> world can't stop <strong>ponderin</strong>g</p>
<p><strong>Science</strong> in art or is this art in <strong>science</strong></p>
<p><strong>Stamp</strong> of a polymath or a hard work's <strong>pomp</strong>?</p>
<p><strong>Making</strong> people say, oh, what a <strong>feeling</strong>!</p>
<p>Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa</p>
<p>Copyright © 2011</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>So??</p>
<p>People who only want to see the partial picture of colours and admire the rainbow's beauty, can never see the wonder of its origin, how you too can make rainbows using the knowledge and how this realization takes them to sublime states.</p>
<p>Only when you have the ability to see the whole and the right picture and appreciate it and make use of it can you understand this. You need a new vision that comes at the confluence of science and art to go to these ultimate levels of glorious heights.</p>
<p>If you don't have this vision, develop it! It makes life more meaningful and very attractive!</p>
<p>My art work "Natural Prism" depicts this new vision:</p>
<p></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2866686578?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2866686578?profile=original" width="500"/></a>(From <a href="http://www.kkartfromscience.com">http://www.kkartfromscience.com</a> )</p>
<p></p>
<p>The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry.<br/> Bertrand Russell</p>
This vision takes you to the new heights!!</div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig">References:</div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig">1. <a href="http://blogs.plos.org/scicomm/2015/11/09/science-vs-poetry/">http://blogs.plos.org/scicomm/2015/11/09/science-vs-poetry/</a></div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<div class="boxyPaddingBig"></div>
<p></p>
Another difference between science and art
tag:kkartlab.in,2015-08-12:2816864:BlogPost:129623
2015-08-12T03:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>An artist said this recently: “Science always pushes for a rational explanation for our world, but eschews the notion that there may be two or more opposing ideas that could equally stand up to scrutiny, forcing us to choose and defend one idea over the rest. Art, on the other hand allows for —and even encourages—the clash and irresolution of conflicting thoughts, but often falls short of providing answers that exist in a greater context.</p>
<p>My view on this:</p>
<p>But, true scientists…</p>
<p>An artist said this recently: “Science always pushes for a rational explanation for our world, but eschews the notion that there may be two or more opposing ideas that could equally stand up to scrutiny, forcing us to choose and defend one idea over the rest. Art, on the other hand allows for —and even encourages—the clash and irresolution of conflicting thoughts, but often falls short of providing answers that exist in a greater context.</p>
<p>My view on this:</p>
<p>But, true scientists cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance ( science doesn't allow for the holding of two contradictory positions). They must choose the facts and stick to them. Should we cater to peoples' archaic or ancient views to maintain our friendships and relationships or to get into the good books of people who judge us? Can we be dishonest? Can we avoid the topic totally and allow delusions to flourish?</p>
<p>There can never be two opposing facts in a given set of conditions! When things are put to scrutiny, all weak ideas that don't follow Nature's rules and conditions have to be discarded. Only things that tally with the laws have to be accepted. Can't you understand that?</p>
<p>You have to accept the reality, no matter what your belief system says or how closely you are associated with the idea. You cannot escape it, no matter how well you try it and live in a pseudo-world. Therefore, scientists are realists unlike artists. Get this very clear!</p>
<p>He also says...''<span style="font-family: hoeflertext; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.6em;">Science and art, working together, can be used to celebrate both thesis and antithesis, and bring them into a kind of harmony where</span> <span style="font-family: hoeflertext; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.6em;">different answers do not create incongruity but instead facilitate</span> <span style="font-family: hoeflertext; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.6em;">innovation. In using both science and art, people can think about</span> <span style="font-family: hoeflertext; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.6em;">the world as a complex web where each fiber—no matter how far apart they may seem—help tie and strengthen the whole structure</span> <span style="font-family: hoeflertext; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.6em;">together.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: hoeflertext; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.6em;">My view:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: hoeflertext; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.6em;">Let us understand the differences clearly first. And why people belonging to different fields approach things differently. It is extremely difficult for us - when once we find a fact and reality - to go to the realm of pseudo-world and ideas that don't fit into reality. The beauty of truth will never allow you to go back to the ugly falsehood. A mind that is broadened by knowledge can never go back to its original and narrow size again! If you don't try to understand this and try to criticize us for not co-operating, it will become extremely difficult for us to work with artists. <br/></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: hoeflertext; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.6em;">As long as you don't ask us to compromise on scientific principles, it is okay for us to collaborate with you. Don't try to cross this red line artists.</span></p>
<p>It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, understand in the right way, accept, and celebrate those differences. </p>
Why you cannot create lots of sci-art works
tag:kkartlab.in,2015-01-28:2816864:BlogPost:123718
2015-01-28T05:30:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>One of my artist friends creates lots of art works. At least ten to fifteen in a month. Most of the works are landscapes and nature-related. It is as if some machine is working in her studio producing innumerable works in no time. And sells them cheap, attracting people and making lots of money in the process. She copies from photographs, pictures in news papers and magazines. She need not put much of an effort mentally. I am sure she can paint thousands of these things in her life…</p>
<p>One of my artist friends creates lots of art works. At least ten to fifteen in a month. Most of the works are landscapes and nature-related. It is as if some machine is working in her studio producing innumerable works in no time. And sells them cheap, attracting people and making lots of money in the process. She copies from photographs, pictures in news papers and magazines. She need not put much of an effort mentally. I am sure she can paint thousands of these things in her life time.</p>
<p>In the beginning I used to wonder how people can do that. I tried her technique myself painting landscapes and realized how easily it could be done. Yes, I could beat her out and paint at least one in a single day! If only I were a landscape painter! I could produce tons and tons of art works and become prolific, rich and famous in no time!</p>
<p>But that kind of work doesn't appeal to me.</p>
<p>My main aim is communicating science to a lay man at the same time do justice to all the fields I work in.</p>
<p>Try connecting science to art with a high quality clarity of the theme . You will soon realize how difficult it is! It is not easy!</p>
<p>Yes, I agree, if you are trying to show only the aesthetics of science, it is easy concentrating on all the aspects of art without worrying much about the science part of it. But communication is a different ball game all together. That is why, I think you don't get many art works based on science communication done by artists and scientists.</p>
<p>And try connecting all these three subjects: Science, Art and Literature. Your mind will blow off! That is what I am trying to do and why my mind is going haywire these days. And I didn't come across people doing this as it is extremely difficult. I have seen some people trying to connect science to art (mostly with aesthetics as the purpose, not communication ), some art to literature, some science to literature but never saw anybody trying to connect all the three like me ( maybe I am the only crazy person around to do this trying to damage her gray matter). I haven't seen anyone else trying to do a three subject work on a single theme of science till now.</p>
<p>And try to connect science to theology and philosophy too apart from art and literature. Need I tell you what happens? You will die a hundred deaths! <span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #000000;">Because science is mainly based on facts and other subjects on fiction, beliefs, personal views, metaphors and intuitions that science finds difficult to accept.</span></span></p>
<p>The difficulty limits the number of works I can create. I cannot be prolific. But still I could manage about 130 sci-art works till now, aesthetic ones included, in eight years. And just a few sci-art-litt ones. People will have to see the quality and not the quantity of work when they judge my work .</p>
<p>Sci based art is no ordinary art, leave alone paintings. It is a highly specialized field and need rare talents to practice. </p>
<p>As my works are rare, they are very expensive too. No complaints please.</p>
<p></p>
Being both a specialist and a generalist helps!
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-12-02:2816864:BlogPost:122146
2014-12-02T01:30:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Being both a specialist and a generalist helps!</p>
<p>Well, yes. I am a specialist on toxins produced by micro-organisms in food. I specialized in a particular subject. That really sounds weird. Because that doesn't make me an absolute specialist. I am a relative specialist because there are several microbes and the toxins produced by them are different. I am a myco-toxicologist, because I specialized in mycotoxins, i.e., toxins produced by fungi. And I am not a specialist on all toxins…</p>
<p>Being both a specialist and a generalist helps!</p>
<p>Well, yes. I am a specialist on toxins produced by micro-organisms in food. I specialized in a particular subject. That really sounds weird. Because that doesn't make me an absolute specialist. I am a relative specialist because there are several microbes and the toxins produced by them are different. I am a myco-toxicologist, because I specialized in mycotoxins, i.e., toxins produced by fungi. And I am not a specialist on all toxins produced by fungi. I studied in detail only toxins produced by fungi in food. That is super-speciality. That makes my field very narrow. Woof! In all other things I am just as good as any other layman.</p>
<p>Am I? Wait a minute. I think I am better than many laymen. Because, I specialized in general in Biological sciences by doing my masters in life sciences. Before that I did my graduation with Chemistry, Physics and Biology as my special subjects. In the beginning, at school, I studied both arts and sciences. I passed through generalization before entering specialization. When I entered the field of art when I was a child and became a self-taught or life-taught graduate in the subjects of both visual art as well as literature, my generalization increased. Then, I started experimenting in several other fields like designing, learning about journalism by making this network into an online journal, by learning social skills, and...I became a total human being.</p>
<p>Yes, now I am both a specialist and a generalist. When I combined all my skills I became somebody really special because my world is no longer narrow, it grew to such a size that my entire view of the universe changed so much that I became a new species of the mind!</p>
<p>This really helps in understanding the world from a new and special points of view and my world has become very broad. And who says a specialist's world becomes narrow?</p>
<p>Generalists tend to have a broad range of skills and experiences across a range of disciplines within their field, while specialists invest time and effort in becoming the go-to person in a certain niche. Usually, specific skills are valued more because they are more difficult to teach. Having a range of different experiences and skill sets can allow people to identify what their ideal role would be over time, and then look for specialist careers. Generalist skills are useful in becoming good leaders and trend setters because the skills help in dealing with different people efficiently. <span class="st">A <em>generalist</em> will be able to thrive in a wide variety of conditions and can make use of a variety of different resources.</span></p>
<p><span class="st">Recently I read this online (1): What’s the difference between a generalist and a specialist? A generalist knows less and less about more and more until eventually he or she knows nothing about everything. A specialist knows more and more about less and less until eventually he or she knows everything about nothing. Being either a generalist or a specialist is useless, and anyone trying to be both at the same time inevitably self-destructs.</span></p>
<p><span class="st">I think this is a dumb and old argument said by people who cannot understand how to gain and utilize the knowledge obtained properly. A generalist can know more and more about more and more of various things if s/he is really interested in learning things and acquiring knowledge. S/he becomes more stronger and stronger mentally. A specialist can learn as much as possible in the subject s/he is specializing in and become very confident. Both processes deal with gaining knowledge. Then one can bring the vast amount of knowledge one gathers to creatively connect things and bring benefit to various fields one is working in.</span></p>
<p><span class="st">And when the situation demands it, a specialist can use the large amount of knowledge gathered in a single subject for specific purposes to help the world. It all depends on how well one can manage and differentiate things depending on the needs of the world around you.</span></p>
<p><span class="st">I didn't self-destruct myself by being both a generalist and specialist. On the contrary, I flourished and reached the pinnacle of intellectualism! A mind broadened by vast knowledge can never go back to its original size!
<br/>
</span></p>
<p><span class="st">References:</span></p>
<p><span class="st">1. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2012/08/10/us-womens-olympics-gymnastics-team-lessons-re-generalists-vs-specialist/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2012/08/10/us-womens-olympics-gymnastics-team-lessons-re-generalists-vs-specialist/</a></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/We760YM5-iM?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
</p>
Are people of science dumb?
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-11-24:2816864:BlogPost:122111
2014-11-24T05:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>I have read 'several' articles recently that say, " sciences should embrace art to get more creative and do out of the box thinking". </p>
<p>Well, this really stumps me. Are people of science dumb? All these inventions, discoveries, thinking in new ways to understand the world and help it - observed for so many years came out of nothing? Isn't there creativity in science? Are scientists limited to their narrow boxes ( some are trying to call them pigeon holes!)? <strong>Somehow I don't like…</strong></p>
<p>I have read 'several' articles recently that say, " sciences should embrace art to get more creative and do out of the box thinking". </p>
<p>Well, this really stumps me. Are people of science dumb? All these inventions, discoveries, thinking in new ways to understand the world and help it - observed for so many years came out of nothing? Isn't there creativity in science? Are scientists limited to their narrow boxes ( some are trying to call them pigeon holes!)? <strong>Somehow I don't like this belittling science and scientists to promote art.</strong></p>
<p>Some people of art told me because of the character of super speciality, scientists can obtain only narrow views. They fail to see and do things differently. This made me think deeply. Because of my specialization in a particular subject has my world became suddenly narrower? Have I forgotten how to think and do things in a smarter way?</p>
<p>The answer I got was a big "NO"!</p>
<p>In fact my science specialization made me become more creative connecting science, art and literature and doing things more creatively in science. Don't forget that before becoming a specialist, I was a non-specialist and I came to this level after studying several things and subjects. I became a specialist by passing through non-specialization! When a brain is expanded to a certain level, it can never become narrower again!</p>
<p>Moreover, it has been observed that people belonging to different science subjects and regions, when brought together and made to work in collaborations, yielded fantastic results. Scientists give CERN's achievements as a good example of this.</p>
<p>An art-science organization's ad starts with these words: 'The new economy needs scientific and creative minds to come together, understand each other and work together across sector boundaries'.</p>
<p>Aren't scientific minds not creative?! Science subject is based on creativity - more specifically scientific creativity. Without obtaining knowledge in various ways, seeing things differently, finding alternate solutions when encountered with problems, how can science progress?</p>
<p>I agree, art is important for the growth of people's personalities. It is important to make things easy for common people to understand complexity. But to say 'science lacks creativity' and say things that mean 'scientists are dumb' or 'their visions become narrow because of their specializations' is not appropriate to promote arts. How can art and artists come to this level of denigration? Do you have to suppress something so important in human welfare to promote your own subject? People of art think about this before giving another lecture or writing article.</p>
How an artist helped science unintentionally
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-10-31:2816864:BlogPost:121544
2014-10-31T02:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Nikolai Peristov, a Russian artist who carves jewellery from ancient mammoth tusks, helped science unintentionally! In 2008, Peristov was looking for ivory along Siberia’s Irtysh River when he noticed a bone jutting from the riverbank. He dug it out and showed it to a police forensic scientist, who identified it as probably human.</p>
<p>The bone turned out to be a human left femur, and eventually made it to the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, where…</p>
<p>Nikolai Peristov, a Russian artist who carves jewellery from ancient mammoth tusks, helped science unintentionally! In 2008, Peristov was looking for ivory along Siberia’s Irtysh River when he noticed a bone jutting from the riverbank. He dug it out and showed it to a police forensic scientist, who identified it as probably human.</p>
<p>The bone turned out to be a human left femur, and eventually made it to the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, where researchers carbon-dated it. It was a 45-year-old leg bone from Siberia and it has yielded the oldest genome sequence for Homo sapiens on record — revealing a mysterious population that may once have spanned northern Asia. The DNA sequence from a male hunter-gatherer also offers tantalizing clues about modern humans’ journey from Africa to Europe, Asia and beyond, as well as their sexual encounters with Neanderthals. “It was quite fossilized, and the hope was that it might turn out old. We hit the jackpot,” says Bence Viola, a palaeoanthropologist who co-led the study of the remains. “It was older than any other modern human yet dated.” The luck continued when Viola’s colleagues found that the bone contained well-preserved DNA, and they sequenced its genome to the same accuracy as that achieved for contemporary human genomes (1, 2).<br/> The researchers named their find Ust’-Ishim, after the district where Peristov found the remains. They dated him to between 43,000 and 47,000 years old, nearly twice the age of the next-oldest known complete modern-human genome, although older, archaic-human genomes exist.</p>
<p>References:</p>
<p>1. <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7523/full/nature13810.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7523/full/nature13810.html</a></p>
<p>2. <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/oldest-known-human-genome-sequenced-1.16194">http://www.nature.com/news/oldest-known-human-genome-sequenced-1.16194</a></p>
Artists damage the ecology when they do things with half knowledge
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-08-19:2816864:BlogPost:119801
2014-08-19T06:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>They say half knowledge is more dangerous. This is true with regard to science. Let me explain how. </p>
<p>If People try to do things with half knowledge, they will do more harm than good. I have seen this with my own eyes: Artists and writers damaging Nature with half knowledge. Their intensions are good. But their beliefs, opinions, art, superstitions, strange interpretations and all things stupid come in between their intensions and screw up their actions. </p>
<p>Earlier I have written…</p>
<p>They say half knowledge is more dangerous. This is true with regard to science. Let me explain how. </p>
<p>If People try to do things with half knowledge, they will do more harm than good. I have seen this with my own eyes: Artists and writers damaging Nature with half knowledge. Their intensions are good. But their beliefs, opinions, art, superstitions, strange interpretations and all things stupid come in between their intensions and screw up their actions. </p>
<p>Earlier I have written on how an artist was consuming lots of power, instead of helping with save it, with her 'enlightening' art work. You can read it here:</p>
<p><a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/artists-venture-into-sci-art-only-after-grasping-the-subject-full">http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/artists-venture-into-sci-art-only-after-grasping-the-subject-full</a></p>
<p>I said then - problems will arise if one cannot see the whole picture like the scientists do.</p>
<p>Artists and writers, please, please learn things properly before doing anything.</p>
<p>----</p>
<p></p>
<p>Now I came across other similar stories ( Source: AP, YOUTUBE).</p>
<h1>Artist accused of damaging environment in Mexico</h1>
<p>A Polish artist famed for slipping crocheted covers around unlikely objects has run afoul of environmental authorities in Mexico for slipping her brightly colored work around underwater sculptures near Cancun. <br/> <br/> Agata Oleksiak says she intervened at the Cancun Underwater Museum this month to call attention to the dangers facing species such as the whale shark. <br/> <br/> But museum director Jaime Gonzalez says she herself actually may have damaged marine life growing on the sculptures in the environmentally protected area. Gonzalez says prosecutors are preparing to lodge charges against her.</p>
<p>**************</p>
<p>Hmmm. Artists, be careful while dealing with science subjects. It is important to see the whole picture. If you do things with half knowledge this is what happens!</p>
<p>'Half knowledge is always dangerous'. I know it is boring to hear this over and over again. And it is difficult to follow too. So...</p>
<p>Get ready to face the consequences now! Or try to get informed fully.</p>
<p>----</p>
<p>Surrounded Islands: Artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude stirred up a massive controversy in 1983 when they used 6.5 million sq ft of pink plastic to surround 11 islands in Biscayne Bay, Florida, USA.</p>
<p>Environmentalists were furious at the idea, and a federal trial came to a head just months before the installation.</p>
<p>----</p>
<p>This is what half knowledge looks like:</p>
<p>A writer while writing a story for a TV serial wanted to tell nice things about Nature and its protection. So she made the heroin lecture it to the hero - great I thought.</p>
<p>Then to my shock the heroine makes several ( about 22!) paper boats, writes all her wishes on the boats and leaves them in the water and tells the hero if she does that her wishes will come true! Even the hero helps her in littering the water body! </p>
<p>Now what if everybody starts doing this after watching this? I got annoyed and left this comment on the You Tube video page where this was posted (some of them removed the videos!):</p>
<div><span>After lecturing so much about Nature, don't the writer, director , hero and the heroine know that leaving paper boats in water bodies is polluting the water and nature?</span></div>
<div><span>Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are solids in water . TSS can include a wide variety of material, such as silt, decaying plant and animal matter, industrial wastes, things people throw in water, and sewage. High concentrations of suspended solids can cause many problems for stream health and aquatic life. If people start polluting water bodies like this, animal life gets affected!</span></div>
<div><span>Watch the videos</span></div>
<div><span><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YiH1wrDmi2k?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</span></div>
<div><span><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8cdxEW7ejkQ?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</span></div>
<p><a href="https://youtube.com/shorts/f-KJoUdm1jM?feature=share">https://youtube.com/shorts/f-KJoUdm1jM?feature=share</a></p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3OKNdRzv5m8?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</p>
Taking science-art to public places
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-06-26:2816864:BlogPost:117840
2014-06-26T02:30:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>I have stressed several times the importance of taking science-based art to public places (ref 1) to make common people understand science in a better way making them more interested in the subject and getting benefited by it. </p>
<p>Now listen to this wonderful news: <em>Magnified</em> is an exhibit of 46 scientific images showing cells and other scenes of life magnified by as much as 50,000 times. The exhibit is on display at Washington Dulles International Airport's Gateway Gallery…</p>
<p>I have stressed several times the importance of taking science-based art to public places (ref 1) to make common people understand science in a better way making them more interested in the subject and getting benefited by it. </p>
<p>Now listen to this wonderful news: <em>Magnified</em> is an exhibit of 46 scientific images showing cells and other scenes of life magnified by as much as 50,000 times. The exhibit is on display at Washington Dulles International Airport's Gateway Gallery from June through November 2014 ( ref 2).</p>
<p><em>Magnified</em> is a joint project among the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the <a href="http://www.ascb.org/" target="_blank">American Society for Cell Biology</a> and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority's Arts Program, which utilizes the arts to enhance travel experiences at Dulles International and Reagan National Airports. ZEISS provided additional support of the exhibit.</p>
<p>Many of the images come from so-called model organisms like mice, fruit flies and zebra fish. These creatures have much in common with us, including a large proportion of their genes. Studying them speeds scientific progress to better understand human health and disease. Most of the colors in these images do not occur in nature. Rather, they are the result of chemical dyes or graphic design programs that allow scientists to study selected structures within a cell - a true combination of science and art.</p>
<p>This experience will help draw attention to scientific research taking place throughout the world.</p>
<p>You can see some of the beautiful images on line too by clicking on ref 2 link.</p>
<p></p>
<p>References:</p>
<p>1. <a href="http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-importance-of-science-communication-through-art">http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-importance-of-science-communication-through-art</a></p>
<p>2. <a href="http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Education/life-magnified/Pages/default.aspx">http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Education/life-magnified/Pages/default.aspx</a></p>
What scientists and geeks do outside of their labs and work places
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-04-29:2816864:BlogPost:116354
2014-04-29T03:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Scientists and engineers are coming out of their ivory towers and forts more and more and interacting with the world outside and enjoying it thoroughly. They are also pursuing their passions. Short videos depict some lesser known aspects of the lives of cutting-edge scientists, their hobbies, passions and pastimes outside of the lab are now on line.<br></br> The Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers is an Emmy-nominated web series and site from PBS’s NOVA. This is where you can learn about…</p>
<p>Scientists and engineers are coming out of their ivory towers and forts more and more and interacting with the world outside and enjoying it thoroughly. They are also pursuing their passions. Short videos depict some lesser known aspects of the lives of cutting-edge scientists, their hobbies, passions and pastimes outside of the lab are now on line.<br/> The Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers is an Emmy-nominated web series and site from PBS’s NOVA. This is where you can learn about cutting-edge science and engineering, the amazing people who do that work, and the things they do when their lab coats come off – win beauty pageants, wrestle professionally, become rock stars, go the art way painting pictures and become magicians, etc. Explore the lives of some gifted and inspiring people who are changing our world… and having a great time while they’re doing it.<br/> Know more about the secret lives of scientists here:<br/> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/secretlife/video-profiles/">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/secretlife/video-profiles/</a><br/> and here:<br/> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/NOVASecretLife/videos">https://www.youtube.com/user/NOVASecretLife/videos</a></p>
Nature painters, you can help scientists!
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-03-29:2816864:BlogPost:115173
2014-03-29T02:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Artists, when you paint nature try to paint the colours, shapes (like river banks and mountain ridges) exactly like you see. This will give clues to future generations to come to conclusions based on your works regarding the conditions in which you worked. This will have tremendous ecological impacts. <br></br> In the future, in case the river changes the course or a landslide occurs, people should be able to identify the differences with the help of your art works.<br></br> No I am not joking.…</p>
<p>Artists, when you paint nature try to paint the colours, shapes (like river banks and mountain ridges) exactly like you see. This will give clues to future generations to come to conclusions based on your works regarding the conditions in which you worked. This will have tremendous ecological impacts. <br/> In the future, in case the river changes the course or a landslide occurs, people should be able to identify the differences with the help of your art works.<br/> No I am not joking. <br/> Read this article: <span class="font-size-2" id="parent-fieldname-title">Hidden in old paintings, a clue to past climate</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"><a href="http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2014/03/painting-climate-history">http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2014/03/painting-climate-history</a></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">It says:</span></p>
<p>Deep red sunsets offer more than just a stunning backdrop for Old Masters' paintings: They can tell how dirty the air was when the painter picked up the brush.</p>
<p>The degree of red in the skies depicted in historic paintings offers a proxy for pollution levels in the Earth's past atmosphere, according to a study published Tuesday. What's more, artists' sunsets have gradually gotten redder over the past 150 years, likely reflecting increased man-made pollution.</p>
<p>Although photos too can capture the reality, camera cannot 'paint' the colours as well as an artist can.There is a difference between the eye of a human being and the 'eye' of the camera. Human eye works better in capturing colours than technology can.</p>
<p>And artists don't use reference photos to paint pictures if you want to help climate science because you don't capture the exact colours of nature when you do. That is why the old painting can help - not the present ones done by using reference photos taken with digital cameras! Plein-air is the best way to go!</p>
<p>Yes, artists today are sensitive to the environment. They can help more now! Real value Science-art collaborations!</p>
<p> ****************</p>
<p>Another example: How a Volcanic Eruption in 1815 Darkened the World but Colored the Arts</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/science/mount-tambora-volcano-eruption-1815.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/science/mount-tambora-volcano-eruption-1815.html?_r=0</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> ****************</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>And here is another example given by a professor which is a bit controversial:</p>
<p>How did (or didn't) paintings help biologists?</p>
<p>A still life painting, an oil on canvas of fruits on a table by Renaissance painter Giovanni Stanchi, serves a useful purpose to scientists, according to one professor. It is a biology lesson of sorts, as it depicts a nearly unrecognizable watermelon in the foreground, reports <em>This is Colossal. Vox</em> reports horticulture professor James Nienhuis at the university of Wisconsin as explaining how analyzing classical paintings of fruits and vegetables are one of the few ways of documenting what they looked like, before selective breeding (to get meatier flesh and other characters) changed the way they look. The greens we eat today are bred for human convenience.</p>
<p>It's fun to go to art museums and see the still-life pictures, and see what our vegetables looked like 500 years ago, according to this professor. In many cases, it's our <em>only</em> chance to peer into the past, since we can't preserve vegetables for hundreds of years. This shows over the years we've bred watermelons to have the bright red color we recognize today. That fleshy interior is actually the watermelon's placenta, which holds the seeds. Before it was fully domesticated, that placenta lacked the high amounts of lycopene that give it the red color. Through hundreds of years of domestication, we've modified smaller watermelons with a white interior into the larger, lycopene-loaded versions we know today. But such ones were present in 1600s too! ( <a href="http://imgur.com/a/zN8Kv">http://imgur.com/a/zN8Kv</a> <a href="http://strangesounds.org/2014/05/hollow-hearts-or-when-starring-watermelons-build-up-strange-hollow-forms-in-them.html">http://strangesounds.org/2014/05/hollow-hearts-or-when-starring-watermelons-build-up-strange-hollow-forms-in-them.html</a> </p>
<p>But look at the picture below taken recently...</p>
<div class="post_media"><a class="post_media_photo_anchor rapid-noclick-resp normal_res_link" href="http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1jtrvj/my_friend_just_cut_open_a_watermelon_from_costco/" id="normal_res_link_57549009351" target="_blank" name="normal_res_link_57549009351"><img class="post_media_photo image" alt="" src="https://36.media.tumblr.com/fc584abce705c559701ac5bcc6cfc2fb/tumblr_mr4gwxhHNh1r8vrhxo1_500.jpg" height="720" width="540"/></a></div>
<p> According to some biologists, this picture shows that professor James Nienhuisis's argument is a very lop-sided one because... they say this picture painted by the old master could just be an unripe or under-watered watermelon. Or it is one with hollow heart, which can look similar. Watermelon “starring" happens because of a lack of viable pollen. If, during fruit set you have cold cloudy weather, no bees working or any adverse environmental conditions, the developed fruit can display starring. This can happen now also. Hmmm.</p>
<p>You can have more comparisons and proof for the second argument here: <a href="http://imgur.com/a/zN8Kv">http://imgur.com/a/zN8Kv</a></p>
<p>and here</p>
<p><a href="http://phys.org/news/2015-06-potential-hollow-heart-disorder-watermelons.html">http://phys.org/news/2015-06-potential-hollow-heart-disorder-watermelons.html</a></p>
<p>The pictures given below are the ones that support the first inference ...</p>
<p class="entry-caption"><img src="http://www.thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/painting-1.jpg" alt="painting-1" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-58631" height="882" width="1200"/><br/> Giovanni Stanchi (Rome c. 1645-1672). Oil on canvas. 38 5/8 x 52½ in. (98 x 133.5 cm.) / Credit: Christie’s</p>
<p class="entry-caption">The ones below show the difference very clearly. Stanchi's watermelon, which was painted sometime between 1645 and 1672, offers a glimpse of a time before breeding changed the fruit ( not a correct argument) according to professor James Nienhuis.</p>
<p class="entry-caption"><strong><span style="color: #993300;">Well, I think the second argument and understanding is correct. Professor James Nienhuis is science-art-field-biased or ignorant about the watermelons' real nature. We have the proof before our eyes!</span></strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><img src="http://www.thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/watermelon-1.jpg" alt="watermelon-1" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-58632" height="707" width="2000"/></p>
My replies to artists' questions - part 2
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-03-05:2816864:BlogPost:114497
2014-03-05T03:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Artists ask me several interesting questions. Whether they really want to learn about scientific way of understanding things or just want to test me is anybody's guess. <br></br> But I never felt I cannot answer them. In the first part I added a few questions and my answers to them. And here I am adding a few more:</p>
<p><strong>Artist ( Mr. X):</strong><br></br> ‘Probably science has been trained and domesticated me- both in physical and artistic life. I usually think art and science are strongly…</p>
<p>Artists ask me several interesting questions. Whether they really want to learn about scientific way of understanding things or just want to test me is anybody's guess. <br/> But I never felt I cannot answer them. In the first part I added a few questions and my answers to them. And here I am adding a few more:</p>
<p><strong>Artist ( Mr. X):</strong><br/> ‘Probably science has been trained and domesticated me- both in physical and artistic life. I usually think art and science are strongly associated and such relationship will help man to observe things in the universe and on our planet earth sensibly and compassionately. Is my observations are meaningful?’</p>
<p>‘Why nature, avidly modified humans into more intelligent beings compared to other species? <br/> And why humans fervently acquire automobiles rather than art works, and arms rather than flowers?’ Kind regards!</p>
<p><strong>My answers:</strong> <br/> Thanks for the questions, Mr. X<br/> Yes, when you have both art and science in a single mind, your outlook will definitely be different. I find this really interesting.<br/> Artist's depend mostly on "their thoughts, ideas, beliefs and personal views" for their work whereas scientists' base their work on natural laws and facts and how to fit their informed ideas into these laws to creatively invent or discover something. The imagination of a scientist is based on reality. A scientist has to get his imagination right to succeed where as the artist need not do it right to move forward. In fact, the inadequacies of artists' imagination are what moves the art world forward!<br/> I will give an example here. When artists, writers and poets look at the moon they see it as a silver ball in the sky and describe it or paint it in this manner. I even read some stories where the crescent moon was described as a jewel in the hair of a God! This thinking reflects in their creativity ( metaphor and fiction). Now scientists think in terms of a rocky, dusty satellite that moves in space around the earth trapped in its gravity field when they think about the moon and they use their creativity to take the help of the gravity of the moon to accelerate space ships or change their course to send them to other planets to save fuel and time - the mechanism is called "gravity assist " ( fact). In that way artistic creativity differs from scientific creativity.<br/> Artistic creativity makes me relax and breathe easy while my mind gets over burdened with scientific creativity. Changing the gear then will really be helpful.<br/> Both science and art are compassionate when taken in the right perspective. But somehow as scientists we were told and trained to put emotions at bay as soon as we enter our work places as they interfere with critical thinking. It is difficult for scientists to come out of this mold. In art there are no such restrictions and therefore artists seem more humane and emotional.<br/> However, anyone who knows how a nervous system works during pain processing can do no physical harm to any living being. And anyone who knows how the brain really works at the emotional level will never try to harass another living being. Any person who has seen how the scientific rules are followed universally in a given set of conditions, and understood its beauty can never think in local terms and can never come under the influence of artificially created races, castes, groups, communities or citizenships. He sees all the living beings as his own images - following universal rules of life and as citizens of this universe.<br/> I learned all about human existence, morality, humane nature, universal brotherhood, secularism, tolerance, inner strength and everything a human being should be from science! It gave me answers to several of my questions - including the most testing ones like - how to be calm in the most trying circumstances, how to have peace of mind when everything around you is falling apart. In that way both art and science are both humane and meaningful. <br/> I have already answered your third Q in one of my art works titled " Choice is yours". Some people complain that science also brings with it a few bad things like commercial GM crops, nuclear bombs etc. along with the good it does to the mankind. But according to the scientific community – science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut throats and spill blood. It can also be used for good purposes like cutting fruits and vegetables. It depends on the person who uses it. Likewise science can also be used for the benefit of living beings as well as for their destruction. Which way it goes is in the hands of the person who uses it. The choice is definitely yours.<br/> Science doesn't ask people to use guns. The ultimate truth is that no nation has gone to war with another about whose laboratories or technologies are better. Human history is instead replete with wars over religion or the egos of kings. It is true that science has provided the tools for war and given a false or a short term sense of confidence to nations, but it has never, ever suggested war. So associating war with science is like associating horses with war – science has provided the wherewithal for more violent wars but never, ever demanded a war or subjugation of other people. That has been done by kings and leaders claiming to be agents of god generally driven by greed or a sense of personal glory.<br/> Again if you ask why this ego and personal glory are present - I would say when the chemicals ( of aggression and reward like testosterone and dopamine ) that control the emotions of human beings become uncontrollable, their minds go heywire. There is a difference between animals and human beings. I created an art work based on the theme too titled "MIND OVER MATTER"<br/> It says:<br/> A mentally weak person says: “You can’t escape your Biology” or “It is impossible to overcome your Biology”. Right? Wrong!</p>
<p>Yes, your genes control the way you behave & live – through biochemical reactions. Your nerves & pleasure points in the body & brain affect your behaviour too.</p>
<p>Harmones try to get involved in every thing you do. With all these strings attached to your life & affecting every move you make, how can you escape your Biology?</p>
<p>But, you can! The same life came with a mind & a thought process too. With a little bit of thinking – you can determine what is wrong & what is right, what is bad & what is good, what is pain & what is pleasure in the end. By tightly controlling this process & in turn the behaviour one can overcome one’s Biology. It is not easy & requires tremendous training of the mind. But if a person can do it, he can become a superhuman. <br/> And "Why nature, avidly modified humans into more intelligent beings compared to other species?"<br/> I think nature doesn't show any discrimination between living beings. One chemical reaction leads to another evolving a more complex system. A single dust grain becomes a complex structure of snow flake.<br/> Watch here how a snow flake 'evolves' here: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYrF3sFBY20">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYrF3sFBY20</a></p>
<p><br/> Likewise a single cell organism evolved into several other forms of life. This evolution process lead to the most complex human beings. Such a complex system needs a sophisticated brain to survive. So the brain too evolved to deal with the complexity of human survival process and 'intelligence' is the result of such evolution. Unless we can analyse the surroundings we live in properly and act according to the demands of our surroundings we cannot survive. This thought process of how to survive successfully in the world we live in lead to intelligence. As we think more and more and put our capabilities to more tests, our intelligence evolves more and more by taking new routes.<br/> And the 'intelligence' of any living being depends on its needs to survive in the environment it lives in. <br/> <strong>Mr. X:</strong></p>
<p>Dear Krishna, thank you so much for your meaningful and beautiful explanations on my questions. As a multi-talented person, your evaluation on life, art and science is fabulously proficient and novel. But about ‘emotion’, artists too are applicable to limitations because emotion is behaviour and its direct exposition possibly contributing different results on art (and precarious results in real life too). For example, Paul Rubens's ‘The rape of the daughters of Leucippus’ and Picasso’s Guernica. Both painting emanates extreme anguish and anxiety but Guernica is so imperturbable than ‘The rape of the daughters of Leucippus’.</p>
<p>My theory on life and human being:<br/> 'The universe deliberately created life in order to feel its own existence and nature purposely adopted and brilliantly designed human beings as an enormous ‘consumer’ to stabilize its bio symmetry. The nature constructed and adjusted human brain and body inaudibly and efficiently for creating and constructing technologies powered by fossil fuels- its basic elements or possessions littered beneath for millions of years in unconventional forms. Nature encourages a human more to buy an automobile than a painting because automobile consumes more fossil fuels than art. You cannot keep aside a single object untouched by fossil fuels in the contemporary life.'<br/> (You can consider this as fictitious, but think about it. Kind regards!) <br/> <strong>My reply:</strong><br/> Thanks, Mr. X. Science is still trying to understand why life came into existence and evolving in the way it is doing.<br/> "Consume" is a relative word.<br/> According to the laws of conservation of energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.<br/> All forms of energy exhibit mass & all mass is a form of energy.<br/> Energy remains constant.<br/> Energy can be converted from one form<br/> to another i.e., if it disappears in one form<br/> it reappears in another form<br/> An atom that is a part of you now can become a part of a plant or a tree in your garden or your pet dog or a hill- while you are living or after your death. If it disappears from here, it reappears somewhere else. Everything came from cosmic energy & mass & returns to it in the end. This universe runs on mass & energy cycles- where life & death are relative terms & words like I & mine become meaningless. Here nothing-not even your body- is yours!<br/> ( My art work "Universal Philosophy" is based on this theme)<br/> So when you consume a plant, the atoms and molecules or energy of the plant become yours. And when a tiger consumes you again you become a part of the tiger. When the tiger dies, all its energy and mass again return to nature and will be consumed by other organisms of nature. So mass and energy are constant and don't go anywhere - they just undergo various cycles.<br/> But we are consuming or taking more than we should from nature and right now it is going out of balance. That is what scientists are worried and warning about.<br/> Fossil fuels came from plants and other living organisms that existed on our planet millions of years ago. And we are consuming them more fast than nature can make them! And utilizing them is polluting the planet and one day they would just disappear from the planet. Then? What would you do?<br/> Again science has to provide the answers! It already is doing just that!</p>
<p><strong>Artist Y</strong>:</p>
<p>Good morning Krishna thank you for your reply, to X's theoretical question, .., <br/> <br/> Pushkin let’s pick up on interesting point you rise to explore possibilities as a group to look at the works more closely by the two master’s Paul Ruben and Pablo Picasso drawing parallel of understanding the psychic nature of their emotions, could have played to effect the final results, as both the painters completed powerful works. <br/> <br/> Paul Ruben's work, ‘The rape of the daughters of Leucippus’- 1618 a classical five figure painting an ancient mythical story in Baroque Era and Pablo Picasso’s Guernica -1937, A black & white symbolic painting depicting war & art, recording the truth behind the bombing of Guernica, and how technology plays a destructive role to mankind as whole.<br/> <br/> Pushkin I would like to introduce a third painting by Ruben’s “The Consequence of War 1638-1639 done three hundred years earlier, as a direct reference and comparisons between the two artists to continuing our discussion on science and art.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>My reply:</strong></p>
<p>Like I have said before on this very thread, according to scientists, science and technology have been misrepresented as things that play a destructive role to mankind as a whole.<br/> Quote-" Choice is yours" my work sums this up. Some people complain that science also brings with it a few bad things like commercial GM crops, nuclear bombs etc. along with the good it does to the mankind. But according to the scientific community – science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut throats and spill blood. It can also be used for good purposes like cutting fruits and vegetables. It depends on the person who uses it. Likewise science can also be used for the benefit of living beings as well as for their destruction. Which way it goes is in the hands of the person who uses it. The choice is definitely yours.- Unquote.<br/> Scientists toil day and night to bring benefits to mankind. It is the people who cannot understand what it is all about and fueled by greed, use the technology for destruction. <br/> Science and technology are not at fault, the idea of using them for destruction is! </p>
<p><strong>Artist Y:</strong></p>
<p>Thank you Krishna for your reconfirmation, I enjoyed X's analogy therefore wanted to introduce another perspective for the benefit of our art audiences seeking further clarification as I believe everyday we awake to explore possibilities of improving our creative minds and the environment that we live in.., question is how to maintain a happy balance? <br/> <br/> If we could continue with our conversation on Science and Art, if other members around the globe including guests would ask a question to Krishna.</p>
<p><strong>Artist X:</strong></p>
<p class="comment-body">‘Manic Depression and Creativity’ –an interestingly discussed topic by prominent scientists recently and some of the famous artists were introduced during the discussion were Van Gogh, Rothko etc. <br/> <br/> It will be interested if ‘Emotion in Artwork’ will be a subject. To me, an artist can’t materialise a creative desire if an emotional influence cannot be taken place. The emotional influence exists as different perspectives as peculiar, composed and mixed. For example ‘Tree of fluids (Body of a lady)’ (Jean Dubuffet) for peculiar, ‘Composition with Red, Yellow and Blue’ (Piet Mondrian) for composed, and ‘Autumn Rhythm’ (Jackson Pollock) for mixed (I strongly believes Pollock’s ‘emotion’ has been intertwined with his own ‘physical emotiveness’ too.) ‘Emotions in art’ is a significant subject and we can start a new Discussion on the ICAS’s profile later.</p>
<p class="comment-body"><strong>Krishna:</strong></p>
<p class="comment-body"><span class="text">There are links between mental abilities and mental conditions. I have posted some of these papers on my network (group research). <br/> You can also find some here: <br/> <a target="blank" href="http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efastcodesign%2Ecom%2F3026387%2Fasides%2Fscience-you-think-crazy-artists-make-better-art&urlhash=-sNj&_t=tracking_disc" rel="nofollow">http://www.fastcodesign.com/3026387/asides/science-you-think-crazy-artists-make-better-art</a></span></p>
<p class="comment-body"><span class="text"><a target="blank" href="http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish%2Ecntv%2Ecn%2Fprogram%2Fcultureexpress%2F20131018%2F101576%2Eshtml&urlhash=13B8&_t=tracking_disc" rel="nofollow">http://english.cntv.cn/program/cultureexpress/20131018/101576.shtml</a></span></p>
<p class="comment-body"><span class="text"><a target="blank" href="http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs%2Escientificamerican%2Ecom%2Fbeautiful-minds%2F2013%2F10%2F03%2Fthe-real-link-between-creativity-and-mental-illness%2F%3FWT_mc_id%3DSA_DD_20131003&urlhash=TTRI&_t=tracking_disc" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/10/03/the-real-link-between-creativity-and-mental-illness/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20131003</a></span></p>
<p class="comment-body"><span class="text"><a target="blank" href="http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww2%2Ebc%2Eedu%2Fsara-cordes%2Fpdfs%2FYoungWinnerCordes_PACA2012%2Epdf&urlhash=evN2&_t=tracking_disc" rel="nofollow">https://www2.bc.edu/sara-cordes/pdfs/YoungWinnerCordes_PACA2012.pdf</a></span></p>
<p class="comment-body"><span class="text"><a href="http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113089340/music-not-for-everyone-brain-reward-system-030614/#jMxktHuwd7D0vPL">http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113089340/music-not-for-everyone-brain-reward-system-030614/#jMxktHuwd7D0vPL</a></span></p>
<p class="comment-body"><strong><span class="text">Artist X:</span></strong></p>
<p class="comment-body">A significant discussion. When I suggested for participating, few of my artist friends said science and art subsists on two different shores with dissimilar identities. May be such perception on science and art is personal but untimely because, except some few communities who live, or have lived, either choice or by circumstance, without significant contact with globalised cavitation located in densely forested areas in South America, New Guinea and India, the all other existing civilization now living under a single roof of ‘science’, assisted by safety pin to email and antibiotic to acrylic paints and candies to ballistic missiles! A factual fact!</p>
<p class="comment-body"><strong><span class="text">Krishna:</span></strong></p>
<p class="comment-body"><span class="text">How true! One artist once said, 'we don't need science in the art world' which made me smile. Because I told him, 'the moment you try to mix colours on a palette, you are dealing with chemistry. The moment you start appreciating a work of art, you are dealing with neuro-aesthetics. Now say you don't need science in art!' He was silent since then.<br/> You cannot escape science in any field now! This is a fact.</span></p>
<p class="comment-body"><span class="text"><strong>Artist X:</strong></span>As accentuated science’s prominence and contributions, artists’ stands and concerns too should be addressed. Carl Sagan once said that science is a two edged sword and both representing innovations and destructions. For example, Between 50 to 70 million people were killed by wars during the 19th century because of the lack of technologies and fuels 240 million people were killed in the 20th century by its wars because of widespread discovery and extraction of fossil fuels. Most of the technologies that emerged during the 20th century for wars and warfare depended on fossil fuels and that helped to make artilleries more sophisticated and accurate, more dependable and available; such artilleries butchered millions of wonderful humans for nothing! Artists constantly stood against such criminal intimidations and there are visibly reactions as ‘The Third of May 1808’ by Francisco Goya and the ‘Guernica’ by Picasso Etc. Artists too have reasons on science even if that supports their existence and profession more tranquil and easy.</p>
<p class="comment-body"><span class="text"><strong>Krishna:</strong></span></p>
<p class="comment-body"><span class="text">You need not be an artist or a scientist to be a good person to realize that killing another human being is inhuman and bad. Recently I watched a discussion on BBC news channel where artists and scientists discussed the very things you have mentioned, Mr. Pushkin. Scientists are as much worried about these things as the artists. Some artists said in the discussion, scientific revolution brought all bad things to the world. But according to scientists artists fail to realize that even before 'science' came into existence some human beings killed other human beings using stones! Science has nothing to do with it. Hitler was an artist! Genocide happened because of him. Did you ever heard any scientist becoming a Hitler and killing people on a large scale using gas chambers? It is the kings, leaders and politicians who used weapons of mass destruction. Not scientists. No scientist, in the history of the whole mankind ever used a weapon of mass destruction 'on his own'. <br/> In the previous centuries the population of the Earth was minimum. Now as population growth occurred to a tremendous scale, any weapon used will kill more people per square kilometer than in the earlier centuries. You cannot compare one with the other as equations are different now. </span></p>
<p class="comment-body"><strong><span class="text">Artist Z:</span></strong> G'Day Krishna, Creativity is the same, whether expressed as an aspect of science or as an aspect of art. Creativity is the way people solve problems. The problems typically solved (or attempted to) in science are different from those solved in art. The solutions are expressed as proof in science whereas in art they are a test of one alternative.</p>
<p class="comment-body"><strong>Artist Y:</strong></p>
<p class="comment-body">Hello to Krishna & X thank you for providing an excellent perspective to our interview and debut on science and Art ..., <br/> Welcome to Z, kind of you to join us and thank you for your comments, if I could ask Krishna to respond...,<br/> <br/> We hope as a global organisation we each continue to seek for answers to our own individual questions, hopefully some of them we covered during our responses. It’s been a pleasure and an privilege to have Dr Krishna Kumari Challa amongst our list of GICAS membership, multi talented she also brings with her years of experiences, a symbol of a person who has united and bridge the gap between science and art working in harmony. <br/> I look forward to working together in join collaboration in areas that we could assists..,<br/> <br/> Thank you for your lovely time in our VIP lounge, take this opportunity to officially welcome you as one of the members.</p>
<p class="comment-body"><strong>Krishna:</strong></p>
<p class="comment-body">Thank you so much! <br/> I respect all the fields I work in equally although I think science is the toughest subject of all and need more effort to come up with solutions. Some perspectives provided by artists are really wonderful and enhance my capacity to understand the world in a better way. <br/> Each artist thinks and sees the world around him in a different way. That variety makes the art world very rich. Sometimes I wonder without all the colours , varieties, different perspectives how would the world be? Dull and boring I suppose!</p>
Sunil Vilas exclusive interview’s Dr Krishna Kumari Challa – Indian Scientist, writer, poet, designer, activist & artist
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-03-01:2816864:BlogPost:114315
2014-03-01T02:30:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>An art promoting site in the Uk is promoting science based art. In this connection, it published an interview with me. Please check it here:…</p>
<p></p>
<p>An art promoting site in the Uk is promoting science based art. In this connection, it published an interview with me. Please check it here:</p>
<p><a href="http://globalizationicas.com/exclusive-interview-2013/sunil-vilas-exclusive-interviews-dr-krishna-kumari-challa-indian-scientist-writer-poet-artist/comment-page-1/#comment-38384">http://globalizationicas.com/exclusive-interview-2013/sunil-vilas-exclusive-interviews-dr-krishna-kumari-challa-indian-scientist-writer-poet-artist/comment-page-1/#comment-38384</a></p>
The reason why they never pick science based art
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-02-19:2816864:BlogPost:114259
2014-02-19T03:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>An artist who is dealing with science based art asked me to give reasons why the curators, art critics, gallery people and art collectors don't pick science based art.</p>
<p>My reply: Because they don't understand it! Pure and simple.</p>
<p>But I have a solution: If no one is going to pick you, pick yourself. Why wait for others to do the job for you?</p>
<p>I have read this quote somewhere and I like it: If you are waiting to be anointed, waiting to be branded, waiting to for someone…</p>
<p>An artist who is dealing with science based art asked me to give reasons why the curators, art critics, gallery people and art collectors don't pick science based art.</p>
<p>My reply: Because they don't understand it! Pure and simple.</p>
<p>But I have a solution: If no one is going to pick you, pick yourself. Why wait for others to do the job for you?</p>
<p>I have read this quote somewhere and I like it: If you are waiting to be anointed, waiting to be branded, waiting to for someone with supposed authority to declare you famous, worthy, genius, or what have you, you will fail.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So go and search for the success yourself. Don't expect others to give it to you. 99 times out of 100, they won't. Why would they? It is your life and your struggle. What you do about it is your business. Why would others be interested in it unless they have something to gain from it?</p>
<p>If there is no market for science based art, create one! Haven't you heard about self promotion?</p>
<p>I promoted myself and now people are promoting me for their own benefit! That is the trick!</p>
<p>But you should also understand that to make people understand your work there should be clarity in your work. There should be a purpose for creating science related art. If you have one people too will support it. If you do something purposeless and with ambiguity, how can you promote your work?</p>
<p></p>
Art helping science: These types of claims will not be accepted by science
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-02-18:2816864:BlogPost:114119
2014-02-18T03:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>An interesting episode has happened recently in the science-art arena. I asked several artists whether art has helped in getting sweeping changes across the world. I got some really excellent replies that somewhat changed my perception of art for the better.</p>
<p>But I got some replies that claimed several things. One person insisted:</p>
<p>"Art serves so much and beyond. It is a form of Science of its own but misunderstood and fought by many scientists. It should be collaborated which…</p>
<p>An interesting episode has happened recently in the science-art arena. I asked several artists whether art has helped in getting sweeping changes across the world. I got some really excellent replies that somewhat changed my perception of art for the better.</p>
<p>But I got some replies that claimed several things. One person insisted:</p>
<p>"Art serves so much and beyond. It is a form of Science of its own but misunderstood and fought by many scientists. It should be collaborated which need more research of its own.We have pieces of art from Africa which solves many unsolvable questions by scientists today. There are also many scientists who have taken advantages of those artists for their own benefits."</p>
<p>Then I said: Ms. X, you say : "We have pieces of art from Africa which solves many unsolvable questions by scientists today".<br/> Please let me know the details and I will highlight them and bring them to the notice of the science-art world through my network. Anything associated with knowledge should be given its due respect whether it is from the field of art or science.</p>
<p>And I got back this reply: I did send you one picture of a fertility from Tanzania Makonde Tribe. It is a piece of art which was used by a medicine person or a healer to make a woman become pregnant when everything else fail. I have witnessed more than 15woman achieve their dreams of having children. This is how our doctors worked in Africa.</p>
<p><strong>As a person of science this is really shocking to me.</strong> First an artist says Art can help science but scientists don't acknowledge it. Why would they? Are they dumb to believe everything you say? This is my reply to her:</p>
<p>"Thanks for the message, Ms. X. I didn't get any picture from you.<br/> But the things you mentioned are just 'beliefs' and will not be accepted by main stream science. I came across these things happening in Africa through BBC news. If doctors there worked like this, I think they are not real doctors. Like BBC says they could be witch doctors or people practicing alternate medicine. Such stories don't stand a chance of acceptance in the world of science. As a person of science I will have to be skeptical about these things and cannot accept them and promote them. Sorry!"</p>
<p>Artists, don't try to bring baseless beliefs into the world of science and say these are miracles science has to understand and deal with too. A work of art making women pregnant and helping doctors! What a shock?! I am still shaking my head with disbelief! Am I living in the 21st century?</p>
<p>I don't mean insult here. I am only mad at science communicators. Where are you people?</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
Why is it difficult for people of science to be in the same room with artists
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-02-02:2816864:BlogPost:113691
2014-02-02T04:30:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Why scientists cannot be on the same wavelength with the artists....</p>
<p>Science-art interactions are bringing people from various fields together. Instead of forging friendships between these people several times these interactions are ending in bitter skirmishes. After interacting with scientists, some artists tried to tease the former group of people and their way of doing things. I myself witnessed these things before my own eyes. I want to bring these things to the notice of both…</p>
<p>Why scientists cannot be on the same wavelength with the artists....</p>
<p>Science-art interactions are bringing people from various fields together. Instead of forging friendships between these people several times these interactions are ending in bitter skirmishes. After interacting with scientists, some artists tried to tease the former group of people and their way of doing things. I myself witnessed these things before my own eyes. I want to bring these things to the notice of both scientists and artists who are into collaborations.</p>
<p>This network has both artists (including writers and poets) and scientists. It is true that some scientists here complained to me that the behaviour of the artists here 's disturbing. Scientists are usually introverts and want to be left alone. I had to warn the artists not to disturb the scientists making the former sulk.</p>
<p>Recently I had a few very detailed discussions with both scientists and science communicators ( journalists and writers) on why it is difficult for scientists to deal with people outside of their field. I want to put the concerns of these people of science before the artists too.</p>
<p><span>Science has, at times, accused art of being too imprecise and emotional, of lacking science's high standards of rigour. Art, on the other hand, has dismissed science as cold and dispassionate.</span></p>
<p>One thing all these people around the world dealing with science related issues told me is - the moment a person thinks he has all the answers, his mind will be closed and it is difficult to deal with closed minds. While for religious people "GOD" is the answer for everything, for artists "I, me and myself" are the answers for everything! ( I know people of religion and artists would now say - for scientists "science" is the answer for everything. But science is an ever-evolving subject and is very open to criticism, other criteria, and correction and therefore is not closed).</p>
<p>I wrote on science and religion and posted my article in the group 'Some Science' here (Ref 1).</p>
<p>I want to deal with art and artists in this blog.</p>
<p>For a fruitful collaboration/debate/discussion you need a shared praxis or a shared ground - even a partial one will do. If there isn't one at least you have to have open minds. In the absence of both these things, you can't even have a good discussion. I have seen this happening several times when scientists and artists were discussing things.</p>
<p>The moment a scientist says something about art, some artists would immediately object to it and say, "What do scientists know about art to say this?" Don't scientists have the right to say something about art that originated from the cultures they were born into and grew up in? Are scientists dumb not to take cues from the art world to understand what art is all about? Isn't the world of science dealing ( you will find here in the group 'research' proof ) with all art related issues too?</p>
<p>Artists, please don't close the doors to the opinions of scientists. Scientists fully know why they are saying something when they are saying it!</p>
<p>Another thing artists 'conclude' even before the discussion starts is 'scientists are different mental animals' ( 'mental' is a derogatory word used in this part of the world to say somebody is 'mentally ill'. 'Animal' again is another derogatory word used to mean 'uncivilized brute'. But while dealing with people from different parts of the world, I developed tolerance because I know these words are not as derogative in some other parts of the world and cultures as they are here ) and therefore cannot understand them and art properly. But scientists are human beings too and have all the human traits. They are not people from alien lands. They try to understand things, although they work differently. Artists should try to understand things from scientists' perspectives too for fruitful collaborations. It would be better if they try to understand all about the world of science.</p>
<p>Then artists have a strange feeling that all scientists are arrogant because they fail to see things form 'their ideas and beliefs' points of view. Ideas is okay but scientists have problems with 'personal beliefs' because they have no place in science. Usually scientists don't deny it if something is based on facts. Scientists would analyse everything by going deep into the depths of reasoning. If the 'belief' cannot fit into facts, they naturally reject it. They don't want to argue and waste their precious time with people who just ask them to accept things just because they believe in it. Arrogance has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>Artists also say, 'alright we cannot save lives like science does, but writing a poem or painting a thought-provoking piece can engender real-life change in the world around us, even if it doesn’t save a life or turn a wheel' ( when I asked scientists about this, they smiled and asked ' have artists tried till now to overcome the cultural conditioning of their own minds first? Then how can they change the world around them if they themselves are not open to change? All that they are propagating is their own beliefs - not facts to bring radical changes! If a change happened at all it is because of science and technology - the lives of people have definitely improved from cave-dwelling, hunting way of life to present day of comfort and food security. It is because of mismanagement of fruits of science by politicians, businessmen and greedy people who don't have much to do, these fruits of science are not reaching everybody. Has art or humanities tried to solve this problem in any way? On the contrary these problems are increasing day by day. We hope artists would walk the talk now).</p>
<p>Scientists think artists are loud, noisy ( they give examples of recent trends in music), very emotional, showy ( strange ways of dressing, hair styles etc.), irrational and not open to criticism! They try to attack you at every step and try to silence you down. Artists participating in the debates are often really so aggressive, trying to attack you with all their might because they are worried they would be outdone by facts and truth that they don't give you chance to even think , breathe and talk. You will be forced to withdraw and keep quiet! (According to some psychologists this type of aggression is related to dog's way of doing things. Dogs, it seems, attack first by barking aggressively so that the person they are barking at get mind-blocked with fear by the aggression, fail to think, and don't attack them in return so the dogs can be safe! Nice strategy). Artists refuse to accept facts, refuse to reason, argue only what they believe is correct and what the scientists say is wrong without giving valid reasons and facts. Although scientists too like art, they feel it is difficult to deal with people who create it.</p>
<p>Scientists really have a difficulty with uncontrolled emotional part of people's minds like artists, actors and people of religion have. This is because scientists would be told and trained to keep the emotions at bay as soon as they enter their work places because they interfere with neutral reasoning which is essential for scientific progress. They try to speak facts with a distance that is perceived as cold and unemotional. It is difficult for the scientifically trained persons to come out of this mold. And artists say scientists are cold and unemotional!</p>
<p>Artists think scientists too do things in the way they do but don't acknowledge it. This is not true according to scientists. You can read why this is not true by clicking on ref 2 link.</p>
<p>If you make loud noises the thought processes and deep analyses would get disrupted. So scientists try to keep away from people who do this. They would rather concentrate on other important things like tackling more food production for ever growing population of earth - than on self indulgences like dressing. They hope and wish artists would try to understand the scientific way of doing things rather than argue, mock and attack.</p>
<p>These are some of the other opinions expressed by people of science (and please do remember that they are not my words):</p>
<p>*Artists say scientists should embrace art to understand science more and that science wont solve the world's problems by itself. We would rather say that the world doesn't know enough science to help itself. I can't see how forcing a microbiologist to read Chaucer or playing Chopin to a petro-chemist is going to benefit cultural understanding. Artists are urging us to dumb science down for the masses, something that is not conducive to public education and, quite frankly, insulting!</p>
<p>*We have tried to teach and find a middle ground, but time and again, it is obvious how so few of these people want to be taught. For them, angry and/or activist equals being informed.They do not care about any information that contradicts their tribal mythology. It takes far less effort to complain than to learn.</p>
<p>How many times are we confronted by people who claim "I have done the research", but show absolutely no knowledge of the science or even an accurate grasp of the issue? And then when you do try to provide an evidence-based response and demonstrate an actual knowledge, you are accused of being a shill.</p>
<p>This attitude of "it is the fault of how scientists present and engage, not the public" is equally untenable when that population of the public considers appeals to emotion and personal anecdote to be more reliable than fact.</p>
<p>*That's great. These people dare to tell us how to deal with people who's answer to everything is "it's the will of God".<br/> This is what we've been waiting for for some considerable time.</p>
<p>*Liberal arts do not interact with the performing of science. Liberal arts are merely a spectator. The problem begins when the liberal arts begin to believe that they are entitled to input into how science is done or interpret the meaning of scientific investigations.</p>
<p>Interpretation of scientific results using a liberal arts or any viewpoint is not scientific in any way shape or form. But for further clarity, LA may be used to discuss applications, politics or values of the implications of the science or the results, but the science and results still stand apart.</p>
<p>Liberal Arts are as irrelevant to the conduct of science as a latte and scone. They may however, be used to make it more enjoyable or comfortable.</p>
<p>*It is the students of the liberal arts who need to embrace science, not the other way around. Somehow, our society has gotten the idea that someone can have a well rounded education by taking courses in various liberal arts while avoiding studying science. We should not have to explain to the public the scientific method or how peer review works. Those very basic concepts should be part of any well rounded education. It has been my experience that students of physics, chemistry and medicine are well acquainted with Shakespeare, Voltaire, Kant, Mozart, etc., but students of literature, music, art and history glaze over whenever even basic concepts of science are being discussed.</p>
<p>*The real problem is that most of the general population is abysmally ignorant of even the most basic science or engineering facts. The talking heads who dispense "news" are even worse off in this regard, and are actively given to fomenting hysteria around their (or their advisers) false idea of the facts surrounding such matters. Until our schools and parents overcome this illiteracy, it is very difficult to see how any progress can be made.</p>
<p>* Science has nothing to do with liberal or conservative arts. It is apolitical. A scientific theory will be demonstrate it's validity whether told in Shakespearen prose or in gutter slang. Eloquence has nothing to do with it. Science needs not the filters of humanities. That is just spin and fog.</p>
<p>* Science-art sojourns are for artists who want to play with new dolls and scientists who cannot do good science.</p>
<p>* Science exists apart and independent of the human condition and humanities.</p>
<p>For example, E=mc2 is an eternal condition and did not require the mind of man to understand it before it sprang into existence.</p>
<p>In contrast, the drafting of the Declaration of Independence required hundreds if not thousands of years of study into the human condition, and even some of the truths contained therein are still not self-evident. Art needs the effort of a human mind. Arts cannot exist without human beings and science is over and above human existence.</p>
<p>So stop gloating about the arts.</p>
<p>--</p>
<p>This really is interesting. I have dealt with artists, scientists, science-communicators, science-artists and gained very significant insights into the thoughts of people in these arenas . I presented these things with a view to help people from different fields in understanding things from others' points of view too.</p>
<p>References:</p>
<p>1. <a href="http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/why-it-is-difficult-for-scientists-to-debate-controversial-issues">http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/why-it-is-difficult-for-scientists-to-debate-controversial-issues</a></p>
<p>2. <a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/what-scientists-should-be-cautious-about-during-the-interactions-">http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/what-scientists-should-be-cautious-about-during-the-interactions-</a></p>
The power of truth of science-art
tag:kkartlab.in,2014-02-01:2816864:BlogPost:113447
2014-02-01T05:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Recently one West-based sci-artist friend of mine complained to me that people are not giving funds for sci-art much. "They don't believe us when we tell them... "</p>
<p>"Tell them the truth because majority of the scientists already know the truth", I interrupted her.</p>
<p>She was shocked. "What?! Do you think we are lying?" she asked me.</p>
<p>"No, I don't say that but you are exaggerating things"</p>
<p>"In what way?"</p>
<p>"Read the articles I wrote on this very topic", I told her…</p>
<p>Recently one West-based sci-artist friend of mine complained to me that people are not giving funds for sci-art much. "They don't believe us when we tell them... "</p>
<p>"Tell them the truth because majority of the scientists already know the truth", I interrupted her.</p>
<p>She was shocked. "What?! Do you think we are lying?" she asked me.</p>
<p>"No, I don't say that but you are exaggerating things"</p>
<p>"In what way?"</p>
<p>"Read the articles I wrote on this very topic", I told her and sent her these links:</p>
<p><a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/tall-claims-and-failed-proof-of-sci-artists">http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/tall-claims-and-failed-proof-of-sci-artists</a></p>
<p><a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/what-scientists-should-be-cautious-about-during-the-interactions-">http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/what-scientists-should-be-cautious-about-during-the-interactions-</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>There are more than 1500 people associated with sci-art who read each one of them but not one could '<strong>prove</strong>' me wrong till now.</p>
<p>On the contrary several scientists told me they agree with me and that my views had changed their perception of science-art .</p>
<p>People might not like my words but truth is truth. And we here on Sci-Art lab network are very straight forward. We are not like others who praise, exaggerate, and lift sci-art to the sky. It is not a religion for us to believe in it without questioning. It is just a subject and must be treated as such with both merits and demerits getting equal preference. We show things exactly as they are!!!</p>
<p>Many authors of papers and articles on science-art told me nobody will read their papers and write ups so much as they do it here! I told them, "Who will read boring praises day in and day out? People prefer honesty. And we do honest analysis here. Maybe that attracts people to this network".</p>
<p>There are hundreds - the list includes scientists, artists, sci-artists, writers, educators, curators, show organizers, journalists, teachers, students - who read what I write and post here but none gave me a convincing reply till now to the questions I posed. That is the power of truth!</p>
<p>After reading the articles my friend who complained too didn't contact me again.</p>
<p>So?!</p>
<p>I request people who visit this network and read all my blogs to contemplate on the issues I discuss and find solutions instead of complaining and arguing. We are working towards improvement of sci-art so our articles try to bring people out of the their comfort zones and make people think! These are not to make people feel good about themselves and become complacent and negligent. SCI-Art lab is not for the cowards!</p>
<p>One has to be brave to accept the truth, see a thing as it is, analyze it, and take measures to correct the situation, and bring radical changes to progress in the field. We stand for progress. Are you with us too?</p>
<p><strong>An enemy who criticizes you is always better than a friend who praises you! If you are a person of real 'grey matter' you will understand the logic behind my words - Krishna</strong></p>
Why scientists say what they say about art and people who deal with it
tag:kkartlab.in,2013-12-22:2816864:BlogPost:112816
2013-12-22T08:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Why scientists say what they say about art and people who deal with it?</p>
<p>Yes,why?</p>
<p>Because, Scientists take cues from the art world to understand and learn all about it and also about people who work there and just say what they see! Sometimes I feel when you come from a different field where the parameters to understand, measure and decide things are different, scientists get puzzled too.</p>
<p>However, when scientists say a few things they learned from the art world, funnily,…</p>
<p>Why scientists say what they say about art and people who deal with it?</p>
<p>Yes,why?</p>
<p>Because, Scientists take cues from the art world to understand and learn all about it and also about people who work there and just say what they see! Sometimes I feel when you come from a different field where the parameters to understand, measure and decide things are different, scientists get puzzled too.</p>
<p>However, when scientists say a few things they learned from the art world, funnily, artists are objecting to this! I will give a few examples here.</p>
<p>When scientists want to learn about the definition of art, they find hundred and one definitions! Interestingly, each artist gives one different definition (ref 1). I have noticed the statements artists make almost always start with the words "Art for me is..."! I never heard a scientist say, "For me science is..." because science has fixed values and rules and the definitions don't change according to the experiences of the person like it is in the art world. This really is strange. And I have got an explanation when one of the art sites says why this is so (2)! The article on the site says: There are several ways you could go about defining art. This is because art is an ever evolving field and the definition keeps changes as times go by. Also, each artist has a different view on art depending on his experiences in art.</p>
<p>But an artist got annoyed when I said the above things. He says when definitions change according to peoples experiences, they could be wrong!</p>
<p>Now what can I say?</p>
<p>Science is different though. It works based on a few sets of rules and to define science, the thing you are defining must adhere to the rules.<br/> No such rules in art. So anybody can give any definition to art! <br/> Even if there are rules in art, the unlimited freedom artists seek make them break them and render them irrelevant! So each artist gives one definition and a different meaning to art!</p>
<p>Also one definition of art given by a famous artist here in India: "Art is something that communicates the personal views of the artist about the world around him".</p>
<p>When I told this artist for me art is a way or tool of communicating science, he again got annoyed. According to him, art doesn't communicate anything! And doesn't convey any messages! </p>
<p>I was shocked! Because another artist too told me art doesn't convey any messages!</p>
<p>But my art and some other art forms I have come across too convey messages! Art is a way for us to communicate science to illiterates who are highly prevalent in this part of the world. Moreover, it is our experience that when shown in a picture form, children learn science subjects easily.<br/> Art can communicate a science message. When curators told me people were discussing science standing in front of my art works in galleries now, I was thrilled. When people told me they were discussing science sitting in front of my art works in their living rooms, I was thrilled because my messages got through.<br/> Your experience defines what art is for you ( artists) and my experience defines what art is for me and they need not be the same!</p>
<p>Different individuals have different views on art depending on the cultural conditioning of their minds. But for me, a real art work should convey a message something conceived specially and uniquely by the person who perceives things differently from others around him/her. That is real creativity for me.</p>
<p>Again when I said while science and its laws are universal in nature and are the same everywhere in given set of conditions, various art forms have their origins in the cultures they embedded in and therefore, vary from place to place, although some forms may agree with one another, another artist objected to it! According to him art too is universal! I was flabbergasted!<br/> I think, according to him, I was belittling art by saying it was not universal!</p>
<p>Okay, tell me, is classical music the same in the Europe and Asia? Aren't sculptural art works in the temples here in South Asia different from the paintings we see in the churches of Europe? Even the opinions artists express on a single object differ from one region to another depending on the cultural conditioning of their minds. Do you see Burrakatha and other art forms we see here anywhere else in the world? Haven't they originated from the culture we have here? How can it be universal?</p>
<p>Do animals and inanimate things have art worlds like human beings have? But science rules animal, inanimate and human worlds!</p>
<p>And aren't laws of Physics or chemistry same everywhere in the Universe? Doesn't evolution follow the same routes in Europe, Asia, or America? That is why science is Universal!</p>
<p>And according to some artists science based art is just graphics, not art! Just graphics? My science based art fits several definitions of art and galleries all over the world agree with this! Science based art is an art form too!</p>
<p>I wonder why artists become so emotional and can't bear to see the reflections of their own worlds from scientists. I sometimes really find it difficult to deal with the artists.</p>
<p>A psychiatrist friend of mine who read this blog, said that a few things tell about these artists. And... I refuse to add these things to the blog. Because I don't want to make the relationship between scientists and artists more complicated!</p>
<p>References:</p>
<p>1. <a href="http://kkartlab.in/forum/topics/what-is-the-definition-of-art">http://kkartlab.in/forum/topics/what-is-the-definition-of-art</a></p>
<p>2. <a href="http://arthistory.about.com/cs/reference/f/what_is_art.htm">http://arthistory.about.com/cs/reference/f/what_is_art.htm</a></p>
How Scientists look at Art
tag:kkartlab.in,2013-12-18:2816864:BlogPost:112700
2013-12-18T05:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>A few days back, I sent a message to all the members of Sci-Art Lab asking them to participate in a research study titled "How scientists look at art" and help the scientists. I , myself, was a participant scientist in the study.</p>
<p>Now the results of the research project carried out by Bayer in conjunction with the University of Reading are out. You can see the full details here:</p>
<p><a href="http://pegasuscomps.com/bayer150art/">http://pegasuscomps.com/bayer150art/</a></p>
<p>The…</p>
<p>A few days back, I sent a message to all the members of Sci-Art Lab asking them to participate in a research study titled "How scientists look at art" and help the scientists. I , myself, was a participant scientist in the study.</p>
<p>Now the results of the research project carried out by Bayer in conjunction with the University of Reading are out. You can see the full details here:</p>
<p><a href="http://pegasuscomps.com/bayer150art/">http://pegasuscomps.com/bayer150art/</a></p>
<p>The main conclusions of the research are:<br/> 1<br/> At the aggregated level of the artwork categories,<br/> no significant difference was observed between Scientists<br/> and the Control group.<br/> 2<br/> At the level of the individual artworks, however, a number<br/> of significant differences were observed. In the Well-known<br/> Masterpieces category, Scientists showed a particular affinity<br/> for the DalÍ artwork with one respondent making a<br/> specific connection between Surrealism and science:<br/> “Surrealism is one of the consequences of scientific thinking.”<br/> A significant difference was also observed in the Still Life<br/> category , where once again the Scientists preferred<br/> the Surrealist Miró portrait. It should be said that reactions to the<br/> Surrealist Magritte Potrait were very different, <br/> showing the power of an individual artwork to transcend<br/> any predictions.<br/> In fact overall, for both the Scientists and the Science Degree<br/> groups, Surrealism was the most preferred art movement,<br/> compared to the Control group who favoured Realism <br/> Significant differences were also observed in the Microscopy<br/> category for both the most and least preferred image. Scientists<br/> preferred the abstract<br/> Xylem<br/> image to the figurative<br/> Neural<br/> Network<br/> image , perhaps responding to its<br/> “particular beauty”. Surprisingly, in choosing the least preferred<br/> image, the Scientists were less averse to the Cancer Cell image<br/> which so alienated the Control. It is probably not surprising that<br/> the highest proportion of significant differences were observed<br/> in this category, since the Scientists would have a professional<br/> take on the images, providing them with a different perspective<br/> and, for example, making<br/> Cancer Cell<br/> less shocking.<br/> 3<br/> We saw at the overall level that respondents most preferred<br/> artworks in the “figurative” category and least<br/> preferred those in the “abstract” category .<br/> However although this preference was confirmed in the<br/> categories of Still Life paintings, Sculpture, Landscapes,<br/> and Well-known Masterpieces, there were counterexamples<br/> where artworks in the “abstract” category were preferred in<br/> the categories Portraits, Microscopy and Conceptual Student<br/> Art. This was due to the outright winner effect. As we can see<br/> winners in each category scored in the<br/> range 28%-45%, strongly influencing or determining the overall<br/> preference result. So in the Portraits and Microscopy categories,<br/> the “abstract” winners had an average score of 35% (Malevich<br/> and the Xylem), while in the Conceptual Student Art category<br/> the Maria Iordanous piece was the overall winner with 45%.<br/> Once more this shows the ability of a particular artwork to<br/> transcend predictable preferences.<br/> 4<br/> As with the overall analysis, data about preferences was too<br/> dispersed for meaningful comparative analysis. However the<br/> qualitative data suggests that respondents made judgements<br/> along both the “analytical” and “affective” dimensions. On the<br/> analytical axis, preferred artworks were seen as making sense<br/> either in terms of the worldview or story they represented (as<br/> for example in the Caracci portrait), while respondents reacted<br/> strongly against artworks they felt they could not understand or<br/> where the message was thought to be deliberately obscured.<br/> On the affective axis, respondents looked for emotional<br/> appeal, rejecting artworks which seemed “boring” or “bland”.<br/> Most respondents wanted the emotion to be positive and<br/> tended to reject negative images such as those in the Student<br/> Conceptual Art category, although this was not always the case:<br/> for example Simon Morgan’s<br/> Old Sparky<br/> was admired as well<br/> as rejected for its sinister political connotations. Responses<br/> were often highly personal, connecting with the respondents’<br/> moods and experiences. It is probably this feeling of emotional<br/> connection which was behind the frequently-occurring<br/> benchmark criterion of “I would/would not hang this in<br/> my home”.<br/> Respondents also reacted strongly to whether the artworks<br/> seemed beautiful or not. This seemed to be related to skill, with<br/> simple or childish images seen as unattractive. This appeared to<br/> be an overriding criterion.<br/> The winning artworks had the winning combination, perceived<br/> as both intellectually and emotionally meaningful, and beautiful<br/> in some way.<br/> 5<br/> The gender analysis shows a much higher incidence of<br/> significant differences. If we focus on the differences involving<br/> Scientists, we can see that for the<br/> most preferred<br/> artworks,<br/> differences between Male and Female groups were observed at<br/> both the aggregated level and the level of the individual artworks<br/> in the categories of Well-known Masterpieces and Landscapes,<br/> and at the level of the individual artwork for Conceptual<br/> Student Art.<br/> Differences between Female and Male Scientists<br/> At the aggregated level, Female Scientists were more<br/> likely to prefer “abstract” artworks in both the Well-known<br/> Masterpieces and Landscape categories,<br/> . This was borne out at the level of the individual<br/> artworks, where Female Scientists were more likely to prefer<br/> the “abstract” artworks .<br/> In the Conceptual Student Art category, the Female<br/> Scientists preferred the winning Iordanous artwork more<br/> than their male counterparts, again showing that they were<br/> more prepared to make the “abstract” choice .<br/> Differences between Female Scientists and Female Control.<br/> At the aggregated level, Female Scientists were more likely<br/> than the Control to prefer “abstract” artworks in both the<br/> Well-known Masterpieces and the Sculpture<br/> categories .<br/> At the level of individual artworks, Female Scientists were<br/> more drawn towards the “abstract” examples in the Well-<br/> known Masterpieces and Microscopy categories , for example showing a bias towards the “abstract”<br/> Kandinsky while the Female Control group preferred the<br/> Impressionist Degas.<br/> Differences between Male Scientists and Male Control<br/> At the level of individual artworks, Male Scientists were more<br/> likely to prefer the figurative Well-known Masterpieces.<br/> <br/> In the analysis of the<br/> least preferred<br/> artworks, the trend<br/> for women to be more receptive to the “abstract artworks”<br/> continues. In the Sculpture category, Female scientists<br/> disliked the Figurative Brancusi more than the men, while<br/> the Male Scientists disliked the Abstract Hepworth more<br/> than the women . In the Microscopy category,<br/> Male Scientists disliked the “abstract” examples more.<br/> In the Conceptual Student Art category this trend was<br/> reversed with the Female Scientists strongly disliking the<br/> “figurative” Morgan<br/> Old Sparky<br/> and Male Scientists liking<br/> the “abstract” Lewis piece. This effect seems to be<br/> associated with meaning rather than artwork style, and may<br/> reflect the difficulty of classifying Conceptual Art in this way.<br/> The trend was also reversed in the Microscopy images,<br/> where the Female Control group disliked the figurative<br/> images more, largely due to the<br/> Cancer<br/> Cell<br/> effect discussed above. However this was reversed<br/> between the Male Scientists and Male Control groups,<br/> where the Male Scientists disliked<br/> Cancer Cell<br/> more .<br/> 6<br/> The age analysis also showed some significant differences<br/> between groups. For the<br/> most preferred<br/> artworks<br/> differences were found in three groups including Scientist</p>
<p>The research on 'How scientists look at art' found that Female scientists are more receptive of abstract artworks than their male counterparts, suggesting that they are likely to be open to a more ‘anarchic, creative and radical’ approach to science.<br/> It suggests that women may bring added creativity and a more challenging approach to science, adding weight to the ongoing, global drive to encourage more women to enter the profession.</p>
My work and words mentioned in online Huffington Post journal/ News Aggregate blogs
tag:kkartlab.in,2013-12-08:2816864:BlogPost:112332
2013-12-08T05:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>My work and words have been mentioned in two blogs of Huffington Post journal:</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h1 class="title-blog">The Art of Science</h1>
<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-m-eger/the-art-of-science_b_4320810.html?utm_hp_ref=arts&ir=Arts">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-m-eger/the-art-of-science_b_4320810.html?utm_hp_ref=arts&ir=Arts</a></p>
<p>and here</p>
<h1 class="title-blog">And The Word is STEAM…</h1>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>My work and words have been mentioned in two blogs of Huffington Post journal:</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h1 class="title-blog">The Art of Science</h1>
<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-m-eger/the-art-of-science_b_4320810.html?utm_hp_ref=arts&ir=Arts">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-m-eger/the-art-of-science_b_4320810.html?utm_hp_ref=arts&ir=Arts</a></p>
<p>and here</p>
<h1 class="title-blog">And The Word is STEAM</h1>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-m-eger/and-the-word-is-steam_b_4404462.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-m-eger/and-the-word-is-steam_b_4404462.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h2><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-m-eger" rel="author">John M. Eger</a></h2>
<p class="teaser_permalink">Van Deerlin Endowed Chair of Communications and Public Policy and Director of the Creative Economy Initiative, San Diego State University</p>
<p class="teaser_permalink">has written the two blogs on the Art of Science and the importance of Steam education , where he mentioned my words on the subject.</p>
<p class="teaser_permalink">Please read the blogs and add your comments here.</p>
<p class="teaser_permalink">Thanks</p>
<p class="teaser_permalink">Krishna</p>
STRANGE BIO-ART
tag:kkartlab.in,2013-10-23:2816864:BlogPost:111301
2013-10-23T03:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>A British artist got an inspiration that would make your skin crawl. Yes, have you ever thought of being wrapped-up in cloths made of deadly Bacteria? Before running away listen to this story of the artist who combines terrifying bugs into textiles.</p>
<p>She stitches bacteria and antibiotics into cloths to make patterns and reveal the stories behind microbes. Who is she? Well, a bio-artist, who else, called Anna Dumitriu.</p>
<p>Her biological 'inks' range from methicillin and vancomycin -…</p>
<p>A British artist got an inspiration that would make your skin crawl. Yes, have you ever thought of being wrapped-up in cloths made of deadly Bacteria? Before running away listen to this story of the artist who combines terrifying bugs into textiles.</p>
<p>She stitches bacteria and antibiotics into cloths to make patterns and reveal the stories behind microbes. Who is she? Well, a bio-artist, who else, called Anna Dumitriu.</p>
<p>Her biological 'inks' range from methicillin and vancomycin - resistant <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Staphylococcus</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;">aureus</span> to <span style="text-decoration: underline;">E</span>. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">coli</span> and other super bugs like tuberculosis causing bacteria!</p>
<p>Sometimes the bugs themselves mark the cloth; in other cases, such as the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Staphylococcus</span> varieties, she uses a patented agar jelly to stain them instead. She stitches them into Victorian - era cotton dresses, silk patchwork quilts and crocheted wool bedcovers and then kills them using a high pressure lab sterilization technique! The VRSA dress metaphorically maps the evolution of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">S</span>. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">aureus</span> from a harmless human microbe into a killer bug by using three separate strains to pattern the dress.</p>
<p>She harvested everyday <span style="text-decoration: underline;">S.</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;">aureus</span> from her nose, and grew it on the dress. Next, she grew two deadly laboratory strains of evolved <span style="text-decoration: underline;">S</span>. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">aureus</span></p>
<p>Dumitriu embroiders patterns on the dress using thread stained with modern antibiotic drugs and older antibiotic compounds such as yellow turmeric and orange Prontosil, the first commercially available antibiotic, which is derived from a red dye.</p>
<p>The VRSA was resistant to all of these, and only died when sterilised. To avoid catching the bugs, Dumitriu works inside a biosafety level 2 lab, following standard lab safety procedures. Even when using everyday environmental bacteria, she keeps the cultures at low temperatures to minimise the chances of breeding pathogens.</p>
<p>She is also designing a dress using hypersymbionts – human-dwelling bacteria that actively improve us, making us fitter, happier or more intelligent.</p>
<p>She says, "it is about uncovering the bizarre histories behind medical microbiology and showing how much it has evolved."</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24432-cosy-quilts-made-of-killer-superbugs.html#.Umc-AVPngb5">http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24432-cosy-quilts-made-of-killer-superbugs.html#.Umc-AVPngb5</a></p>
Artists, welcome to the tough world of science!
tag:kkartlab.in,2013-09-13:2816864:BlogPost:110476
2013-09-13T03:00:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>I have seen at least 25 artists complaining that scientists never accept that their work could help science or that it was highly significant!</p>
<p>I myself wrote a few highly critical articles on the work of artists (1,2,3,4). Why do I do this?<br></br> Am I against art and these artists? Do scientists think that art is inferior to science? Definitely not! I respect art as much as I respect science.</p>
<p>If I think art is inferior to science why would I enter the field in the first place?…</p>
<p>I have seen at least 25 artists complaining that scientists never accept that their work could help science or that it was highly significant!</p>
<p>I myself wrote a few highly critical articles on the work of artists (1,2,3,4). Why do I do this?<br/> Am I against art and these artists? Do scientists think that art is inferior to science? Definitely not! I respect art as much as I respect science.</p>
<p>If I think art is inferior to science why would I enter the field in the first place? Why would I create Sci-Art Lab, instead of a pure Science Lab?</p>
<p>The truth is science has a different set of standards and measurements to that of art. I have written extensively on this. I am from the world of science and the latter would influence me in my thinking about science-art. Scientists think in a different way to that of artists' route.</p>
<p>Your opinion or perception that your work is good cannot convince scientists whose measurements are based on proof and facts.</p>
<p>Artists are asking scientists to modify and change their methods of measuring sci-art. But science will fall apart without these set of rules to follow. Scientists cannot deviate from their standards and still work in the field of science.</p>
<p>Artists, welcome to the tough world of science. You got to adapt, modify, be prepared to work hard, follow the rules of science to succeed here. If you cannot, you will stay at the fringes and may not be able to enter the main stream of science based work! Yes, you can experiment, do what ever you like with your work , but you will stay in the world of art and not science if you do that! If you want to do more 'science based work' to help science like some are claiming they do, you got to think like a scientist and not like an artist! If you are unable to cope with the standards of science and reject them, I will add here one scientist's words:</p>
<p>People who reject science as a relevant subject are afraid. Science is so truthful, so powerful at stripping away illusions and falsehoods and folk understandings that Dan Donnet described Darwinism as " universal acid", dissolving everything it comes in contact with ( eating through all other thought-systems and radically transforming them <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/mar/01/highereducation.news1">http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/mar/01/highereducation.news1</a> ), but he might as well have been talking about Science in general.</p>
<p> Science grants no immunity to anyone no matter how big the person is. Period!<br/> Yes, science is a tough world ! Only the tough can withstand it! Here we stand by facts and truths and not perceptions and beliefs. So don't complain. Because your complaints don't 'move' science. Sorry, science is not emotional! It is just rational! And reason is unshakable!</p>
<p>References:</p>
<p>1. <a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/half-truths-of-science-art-helping-science">http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/half-truths-of-science-art-helping-science</a></p>
<p>2. <a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/tall-claims-and-failed-proof-of-sci-artists">http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/tall-claims-and-failed-proof-of-sci-artists</a></p>
<p>3. <a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/is-this-how-artists-want-to-advance-science">http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/is-this-how-artists-want-to-advance-science</a></p>
<p>4. <a href="http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/shocking-and-funny-science-art">http://kkartlab.in/profiles/blogs/shocking-and-funny-science-art</a></p>
The truth of science-art helping science
tag:kkartlab.in,2013-08-28:2816864:BlogPost:107936
2013-08-28T02:30:00.000Z
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
https://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>I came across an artist's work recently . This artist is trying to help forensic science! You can see her work here: <a href="http://deweyhagborg.com/">http://deweyhagborg.com/</a></p>
<p>Here you can read an interview based on her work here:…</p>
<p>I came across an artist's work recently . This artist is trying to help forensic science! You can see her work here: <a href="http://deweyhagborg.com/">http://deweyhagborg.com/</a></p>
<p>Here you can read an interview based on her work here: <a href="http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/q-a-heather-dewey-hagborg-information-artist-on-the-intersection-of-art-and-science/10501">http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/q-a-heather-dewey-hagborg-information-artist-on-the-intersection-of-art-and-science/10501</a><br/> (Heather Dewey-Hagborg, information artist, on the intersection of art and science)<br/> At the intersection of art and science, Heather Dewey-Hagborg creates forensic portraits based on the DNA found in stray items, such as chewing gum and cigarette butts. Her work, Stranger Visions, will be on display at the Cyber In Securities exhibition in Washington, D.C., from August 30 to September 27, 2013.</p>
<p>( <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/science/tasting-words-dna-art-neuroscience-on-the-small-screen.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y&_r=1&">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/science/tasting-words-dna-art-neuroscience-on-the-small-screen.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y&_r=1&</a>; )</p>
<p>A Ph.D. student in Electronic Arts Heather Dewey-Hagborg, who makes 3-D "masks," or "portraits," of the faces of unknown individuals using the DNA they unwittingly discard on such things as cigarette butts and chewing gum.In short, Dewey-Hagborg extracts DNA from these samples of trash and turns that information from code into life-sized 3-D facial portraits resembling the person who left the sample behind. She can code for eye color, eye and nose width, skin tone, hair color and more. <br/> She starts by cutting up her sample, sometimes the end of a cigarette, thin slices of a chewed wad of gum, sometimes hair, and incubates the sample with chemicals to distill it into pure DNA. <br/> She then takes that DNA, and matches the code with different traits on the genome related to the way human faces look. Next, she sends the DNA to a sequencing company that sends her back a text file full of A, C, Ts and Gs — remember those from biology class? Those are the four nucleic acid bases that DNA is made out of.<br/> She then reads that information in a program she designed herself, translating the code into traits, then using those traits to build a 3-D model of a face. Dewey-Hagborg can determine ethnicity, gender, even a tendency to be overweight according to this article: <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/05/12/183363361/litterbugs-beware-turning-found-dna-into-portraits#pq=TcHUw8">http://www.npr.org/2013/05/12/183363361/litterbugs-beware-turning-found-dna-into-portraits#pq=TcHUw8</a>.<br/> But even all of that can't give her the whole picture. Much of the information is still missing, and Dewey-Hagborg has to fill in the gaps. She compares that part of the work to a sketch artist. "This person is more likely to be overweight, to have pale skin, to have freckles, blue eyes, how do I interpret this?"<br/> People often ask her how accurate the portraits are. Of course, she has no way of knowing. After all, she collects these items from anonymous sources. But she did start off with her own portrait based on her own DNA.</p>
<p>The portraits are subjective in a big way, she acknowledges, but says much of the information is solidly based in data.</p>
<p>Though she started this project in part to "open up the conversation about genetic surveillance," she says, it's taken on another purpose. Right now she's working with the Delaware medical examiner's office to try to identify a woman in a 20-year-old unsolved case by using some of the victim's remains to build a 3-D portrait of her. She's six weeks away from finishing the process, when investigators will, for the first time, have some idea of what the victim looked like before her death.</p>
<p>Now read the comments below this article:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/05/12/183363361/litterbugs-beware-turning-found-dna-into-portraits#pq=TcHUw8">http://www.npr.org/2013/05/12/183363361/litterbugs-beware-turning-found-dna-into-portraits#pq=TcHUw8</a></p>
<p><strong>Yes, people are very worried! People</strong> <strong><strong>are saying this is just a publicity stunt. They are h</strong>ighly skeptical too! And why shouldn't they be!?</strong></p>
<p>The artist herself apparently shares these concerns! She says: <span class="comment-body"><a href="http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/q-a-heather-dewey-hagborg-information-artist-on-the-intersection-of-art-and-science/10501">http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/q-a-heather-dewey-hagborg-information-artist-on-the-intersection-of-art-and-science/10501</a>">The artist herself says when the scientists pointed this is imporssible: I wasn’t sure at all it would work.</span>My science background was minimal. I had a computer science background. I’d taken the standard biology courses in high school and a little in college. I was coming into it from a pretty ignorant perspective. I knew about evolution, of course. But I had no idea about molecular biology or the lab techniques involved. A lot of the learning process for me on that end was simply mechanical. I was learning to do things like pipetting properly. <span class="comment-body">I’ve been taking the scientific research and interpreting it in a speculative direction.
<a href="http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/q-a-heather-dewey-hagborg-information-artist-on-the-intersection-of-art-and-science/10501">http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/q-a-heather-dewey-hagborg-information-artist-on-the-intersection-of-art-and-science/10501</a>">I’ve been taking the scientific research and interpreting it in a speculative direction.</span> ( <a href="http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/q-a-heather-dewey-hagborg-information-artist-on-the-intersection-of-art-and-science/10501">http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/q-a-heather-dewey-hagborg-information-artist-on-the-intersection-of-art-and-science/10501</a> ).</p>
<p>She herself concedes these works “might look more like a possible cousin than a spitting image. In addition to her upcoming exihibit, <a href="http://deweyhagborg.com/strangervisions/" target="_self">Stranger Visions</a>, she will be <a href="http://qote.me/dHzhFA">leading policy discussions</a> on the implications of her art.</p>
<p>There is a big problem here? The works based on DNA obtained do not allow her to predict someone's face with anything but the crudest of guesses.</p>
<p>Read a blog based on the aritists' work , especially the comments here: <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/05/27/dna-art/">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/05/27/dna-art/</a></p>
<p>Now you will know how fault-ridden her work can be. Actual scientists, it seems, are saying this is a scam!</p>
<p>This article <a href="http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/dna-street-art-or-the-future-of-genetic-surveillance">http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/dna-street-art-or-the-future-of-genetic-surveillance</a></p>
<p>cautions you about DIY Bioart</p>
<p>Now read this article: <span class="font-size-2">Artist Creates Portraits From People's DNA. <strong>Scientists Say 'That's Impossible'</strong></span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/05/31/turning-found-dna-into-portraits-what-an-imagination/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/05/31/turning-found-dna-into-portraits-what-an-imagination/</a> </p>
<p>So?! </p>