Looking at art through the glass of science

Coming from the field of science, I have a different set of standards and definitions for art and sometimes they are too high to the liking of some artists. Some understand, analyse and follow and some don't. I bring "Inventing or discovering something new " to the art field too and "creating something new" is my motive in art. Am I looking at art through the glass of science? Maybe I am. And I am happy with this approach because it enriches art and makes my work stand out. And I listen to art critics' views regarding science-art and think about them. And what is important to me is they all agree that my work is different from those of others in the arena and it is acceptable to them as art. That makes all the difference. Making people from the art field accept my work as real art is the success I cherish as I am not from the field.

For some copying is like creative art . For me it is a different type of art but not very creative. Once I visited a tourist resort here and there six to seven people were sitting on a hill top painting pictures of the scenery. The pictures were almost similar. Same view of the sunset, river, birds and trees. They were doing it day after day for the past several years.Tourists visiting the place were buying them. Do they think anything about art while copying nature? No, they don't. They simply copy starting from the scene, colours, composition from Nature. It is just the art of copying. There is no creativity in these paintings. Even if I do such works, I don't consider them as real art. Period.  Do artists think  it is real art? Okay, go ahead and think in that way. I have no objection.

Some artists say showing something old in a new light is creativity too. Okay. I have seen artists giving beards and mustaches to Mona Lisa. They say they are showing Mona Lisa in a new light!  What a dumb thing to say! Like children who spoil something if they are given some paint and a brushes, these artists are playing like toddlers who really don't know what they are doing. Sorry. That again is not creativity to me.
After discussing the same topic of what creativity really is on my network some time back some of the artists told me they had a re-look at their work and reevaluated it and started doing some thinking before creating works now and have become more imaginative instead of mere copying. And they thanked me for making them really creative. That is what criticism is made for. Not to attack people but to make them think. Different people will take it differently.
Science-fiction artists are tilting more towards science instead of balancing science and art. That is why art world doesn't consider it as true art. Art critics themselves told me this. And after thinking through the criticism, I too feel the same.
Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, although a portrait, was done with special effects and some scientific thinking. Why do you think it smiles at people standing at certain angles? The work was way head of its time. Not all artists can do portraits like da Vinci.

My personal opinion is real art is something that has some thinking went into its creation. Mere copying from modals, nature and specimens doesn't fit into artists' "definition" that art needs intelligence to create and needs as much effort as the scientific research does. Does science illustration fits into this "creative" frame? No!

Science fiction art is art with wild imagination. But the problem is people who are venturing into science -art in any form are not trying to integrate science fully with art. They are keeping science as a separate part and therefore art world is critical about science-art. Some art critics say sci-artists are bringing lab specimens directly into art galleries without trying to turn them first into art pieces. They are just transferring the figures from text books to canvases. Mere  place change doesn't turn it into art from illustration. Science fiction art is no exception. You imagine things and think things but fail to turn them into real art. There is truth in this criticism. The fault lies with science-fiction artists if art world refuses to accept science fiction works as art pieces.
The art in copying things lies in "how well you can copy" but not in how well you can "put your creative thinking into picture form". Copying art is different from creative art! I feel the latter one is the real art because it creates something new and exactly fits into the definition of creativity!

I am not comfortable with the idea of 'standing on somebody's shoulders'. I want to stand on my own and offer my shoulders, if possible, for others to stand on.