Science should dominate science-art, not art!

Q: Without learning anything how could you paint pictures? How can we paint pictures?

Krishna: I think most children would paint something in their schools. They learn the basics when they are children.

After this initial   training, if you want to pursue art, you can go for more advanced courses.

If you don't want to go after art, I think that basic knowledge is enough.

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. 

So I never bothered about shades, colours or composition. Only the themes 're important to me. 

Artists might not agree my paintings are great but scientists think they are! :)

Once I organized a show. Several artists too came along with scientists  to see my work. 

One artist critically analysed all my paintings. "This item should be painted here, not there".

"You should have used a lighter shade there".  "You have used more brush strokes here".

"You should have done this"; "You should have done that" .... blah, blah, blah, blah.

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".

The artist was speechless.

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'.

While painting science, think about only science, not art, and this attitude makes science communication through art easy and simple.