Difference between artists and scientists while dealing with and creating science art

(This blog is  based on a discussion between artists and scientists of which I am a participant of)

Artist:

If we photograph crystalline structures and superimpose the pictures on each other by projecting them onto a flat surface, the result is beautiful ornamental patterns...we see this in Egyptian art...Ornaments in art are what crystals are in nature. They are a form of art inwhich only vectors are used.
(Ref: The Necessity of Art, Ernst Fischer)
Historically, ornamental art first developed by the Egyptians are obviously a kind of graphic maths....which has a narrative in the history of decorative arts. Is not the working with raw genomic data going to result in the ornamental/decorative?

I haven't seen your work, only the images that you layered on mine which were really interesting- maybe becoming beautiful patterns??..which changes the whole feel of the original work.

Just musing here: I took some photographs of light hitting silver paper wrapped around a wooden structure- the photographs were beautiful - I had to be careful not to be seduced by these images...they were just what they were...I wouldn't have developed on from these..chance encounters...with no real substance...

Fractal images have a beauty of form...I wouldn't call them art.

your minimal line 'drawings'? can one call then drawings - I believe so. Possibily all is drawing? I will get back with a more indepth response later..

Are the architectural drawings of Zaha Hadid art? They are beautiful but are they art? I think that the intention of the artists work is at question.
In question in a broader sense is 'taste'.

Their is the necessary search for new means of expressing new realities and I do find the possibilities that are posed by new technologies challenging.....and I wish to learn more..however I'm also aware of my personal concerns of creating 'contrived works', works that just make impact...for me the measure of success of a work is the questions that may arise from it of course also that ' gut feeling' of some sort of recogniition the viewer may feel. It is after all that physical gut response that will capture the viewers attention and hopefully make them linger/ ponder a little. I have connected/ I have communicated with the world through a visual language.

I am interested in what you are attempting to achieve. I will have to look into the works you site above and get back to you.
p.s.- Art has to have meaning for me (another online discussion) again the intent ofthe artist is questioned.

If I look through a telescope at the spiral nebula in andromeda then at an abstract painting in a circular frame that contains the identical visual pattern, my responses are not the same. I am aware of the solemnity of those enormous and remote masses of matter in motion..wwhen I look at a painting I may be astonished by its particular aesthetic attributes but they are in fact artificial...and again here I come to the essence in my view of art as being a medium of communication between the artist and spectator. What is the work saying? It must in my view have meaning..bringing me full circle here....hmmmmmmmm

Back to the question....Can art advance science? - In my view no, a shared imagination - yes...........

Scientist: Where you write "the work of the artist is a medium of communication between the artist and spectator," I could not disagree more. I know what you write is true for many artists, and often for me, but this is not the only option. There are others, as I've realized in my own personal work, which begins with raw genomic data from the public domain. When I visualize something universal and true in nature, it is art in the strongest sense, an has nothing to do with the viewer. I do enjoy the empirical technique when spectators can learn a concept, or open up old association and feelings. If I'm not mistaken, this is the relationship you elude to with the public. Let the individual spectator take what s/he will, and the integrity of a dataset or the truth of a work will remain. Apart from that, I tend to agree with you.

Me as both artist and scientist:

I find this dialogue between an artist and scientist very interesting. Please continue.
I think real art should make a person seeing it think and think and see things in new ways. yes, open a dialogue between the viewer and the art work, in a way between the thoughts of an artist and the viewer of his/her work.
  I find a real artistic characters in you which I find rarely these days!
You said " Fractal images have a beauty of form...I wouldn't call them art."
Same thing is real for "Art in science" you see here: http://www.news.wisc.edu/slideshows/coolscience2013/
A real science based art should show science in a new light! Otherwise it will become just a science illustration! Or just have beauty of form not meaning.

I feel scientists in a way look at their works differently from artists. For most of the scientists, I have noticed, showing things like the structures, specimens in science in the way they see in the labs to the world outside is more important. They don't work like artists. They work like scientists.Some artists too are following the same 'science-art' route. Communicating the importance of science, its theories and themes, showing science altogether in a new light can be taken up by artists. But, majority of them are not doing this. May I ask the question why? Scientists take the cues from artists in deciding what real art is. It is the artists who should show the way.

Scientist: Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa, You are articulate in expressing your opinions on art and science, which are well thought out. I can only speak for myself, I have a passion to find new truth in nature . Does that make me an artist? A scientist? I don't know, and it doesn't bother me the least.