Some questions artists ask and my replies

Artists keep asking me some questions regarding science and art interactions. I want to give replies to as many as I can. If anybody wants to ask more questions they are welcome to add them in the form of comments.
Q 1. An artist:
I know an artist in Oceania who makes his own paper from certain kinds of bark. He grinds rocks for color, one type of rock from each of four islands. His brush is actually dried seeds from the pandanus tree.
With all of this he does the most amazing art. Much of it resembles some of the effects that I get using software. There is absolutely no requirement for an artist to rely on science to do art.
Actually there are a lot of traditional artists out there who are very saddened by many "contemporary artists" who claim the traditional painting techniques are obsolete and irrelevant...it's the kind of arrogance that is among some scientists but not all. What do you think?

My reply: The moment an artist mixes colour - natural or synthetic, he starts dealing with chemistry! The moment an artist starts thinking about his art work , he starts dealing with neuro-science! The moment a viewer start enjoying an art work, he starts dealing with neuro-aesthetics!
Now say art doesn't deal with science!!

I have heard artists - and others too - saying several times that scientists are arrogant and this reflects in their thoughts and deeds. Scientists think they are superior?! At least I  don't think I am superior to any body. Regarding artists helping scientists, the claims are being made by artists themselves - that they can advance science with art! These are not the words of scientists themselves! Doesn't art need science? Join the research group on Art Lab to know how the art world is taking the help of science in everything it does!

Q 2.  Do you feel that scientists  often use artists as propaganda agents to promote science?

My reply: I have heard this allegation  by artists that scientists are 'trying to use' artists to promote science during the interactions. Some even allege that scientists are trying to 'convert' artists into 'scientists'!

Are  science and art  religions to convert from one faith to another?!  Science illustrators and journalists can communicate and propagate science. Do we need artists? The way most artists are doing science, I don't think they are better than science illustrators. Some are twisting and turning the facts so that communication is getting disrupted.

Artists have the choice of refusing to work with people who want to 'use' them if they don't like to do what they are asked to do. Projecting the truth the way it should be done should be the top priority. Artists can always question scientists through their work if they feel what scientists are doing is not right.
But again artists' obsession with unlimited freedom doesn't fit the rules of science too. Scientific theories and facts have to be shown in the right way if one wants to communicate science properly. Artists will have to control some of their freedom while working in the world of science. If they don't like this, they can always quit. And artists can use all their creativity to do marketable science art so that they too can benefit from these interactions instead of just complaining.

Q.3. After reading your article  "Tall claims and failing proof of sci-art interactions" I want to ask  'Does modern day science need art?'

My reply: In some ways no and in some ways yes. ( I will elaborate on this soon)

Q.4:  If we're in the same place at the same time, are we having the same experience?
 My reply: No! Experiences need not necessarily be the same! Your mind interprets things you see and hear depending on the cultural and educational conditioning of your mind! Well the Bio-chemistry of your brain plays havoc too!

Welcome to AL!