Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Saturday, 8 September 2012

Two-Headed Mutant Ammonite

© Glendon Mellow


I mentioned on Twitter I was drawing a two-headed mutant ammonite. 
Here's the discussion. 

















- - - - - - - -

Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite © to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.

Portfolio
Blog
Print Shop

Find me on Symbiartic, the art+science blog on the Scientific American Blog Network!

Thursday, 7 July 2011

My Scientific American blog debut





My first post on Scientific American is now live!

Please head over and check out Science-Art: don't call it "Art" - complete with an interactive image!



- - - - - - - -


Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.

Portfolio
Blog
Print Shop

Friday, 11 March 2011

Nautilus Tattoo - hardcore ink

After posting Thomas Trae's Flying Trilobite tattoo here on the blog recently, I ended up in conversation on Twitter with Alchemystress of Tales of a Mad Scientist on the LabSpaces network.

Alchemystress was unfamiliar with my work to date, and after some enthusiastic emails, decided to get a tattoo based on this image, from one of my university studio projects!



Her tattoo artist did an incredible job of mimicking the pencil and giving it an old-drawing feel, as well as deftly expanding on the flowers I had included.


Check out the amazing ink below, after the jump:

Sunday, 5 September 2010

Science-Artists Feed: the list

The other day I announced a Science-Artists feed anyone can subscribe to, allowing them the follow the blogs of over 50 artists inspired by or working on visualizing science. Here's the list so far of who is in the Science-Artists feed I created and has been picked up by Scienceblogging.org.  I'll be adding more as I go, please feel free to suggest more blogs if you know of them!

The List, in no particular order:




Who am I missing?

- - - - - - - -

Original artwork on
The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under
Creative Commons Licence.

Portfolio
Blog
Print Shop

Friday, 3 September 2010

New: Science-Artists feed




In addition to last week's 
Art Evolved Aggregate feed, I've made a Science-Artists feed collecting scientific illustration, science-inspired art and science cartooning on blogs.  After a discussion with Bora Zivkovic via Twitter, we both agreed something larger than paleo-art (though that's included) would be great to have.  And it's included on Scienceblogging.org!   Visual art and illustration are essential to effective science communication (and can be fun and inspiring), and I love that Bora, Anton and Dave recognize this.  Thanks!

I've likely missed some - there are a lot of talented people out there, so please suggest others!  Likewise, if you know of a blog that touches on sci-art from time to time and uses a helpful tag or label on those posts, let me know and I'll add that tag to the feed.

For the moment, I've mostly left out comic strips and photography and I'm focusing on scientific illustration, digital and traditional painting and drawing, and cartooning.

A tip of the hat to Richard Carter, FCD for suggesting the use of FriendFeed when I was creating both feeds.

If you'd like to see the list of blogs who've been added so far, go here.

If you'd like to add the sidebar widget to your own blog,let me know and I'll send you the html to look like this:








Suggestions welcome!

- - - - - - - -
Original artwork on
The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under
Creative Commons Licence.

Portfolio
Blog
Print Shop

Thursday, 10 June 2010

Green paint.

Based on a recollection. Names changed, paraphrasing abounds. This ain't how it really went.

Me: Art Supply Shop, how can I help you?

Customer [Let's call them "Green-Required-Event-Eventually-Needs".]: I'm looking for some green paint, like eco-friendly paint.

Me: Like a particular brand?

Green: I don't know a specific brand. Whichever brand is the most green.

Me: Okay, let's see...what are you using it for?

Green: It's for the eco-home show, at the convention centre. We want to have a kids' station, for them to do crafts, so we need whatever's the most green paint you have. Isn't there enviro-friendly paint?

Me: Well, I don't think any of the paint brands we have market themselves that way. Lots of the sketch papers do; hydro-powered or wind-powered production plants --

Green: --Yes. Like that. The wind-powered paint.

Me: Okay. As I say, I can't think of a paint manufacturer who markets themselv--

Green: --Just whichever one is the most GREEN.

Me: Alright. Well, let's start with this. Since it's for children, the most common type of paint would be tempera, sometimes called gouache. It rinses off with water, and it's made from gum arabic, some binder agents, maybe resin, and pigment.

Green: So it's the most eco-friendly?

Me: Well. Yes and no. Okay, just to be a bit on the technical side: All paints are made of a vehicle, and pigments. The pigments used in any kind of paint, or brand of paint are the same pigments. They're what give it the colour. The vehicle is what the paint is carried in. Oils are carried in usually linseed oil from flax, acrylic are in an acrylic polymer and water-colours are in gum arabic, which is water-soluble. The tempera I mentioned is a lot like watercolour, only the colours used are more opaque, and their may be other chemical binding agents in it. I think they used to use egg sometim--

Green: --I don't want other chemical agents or whatever. I want the best enviro-friendly, natural paint. This is for children!

Me: Okay, yeah, I understand that. Here's the thing. The chemicals themselves in that paint are non-toxic, that's one reason it's popular for kids. Okay, so all paints have a vehicle, and pigments. Vehicle-wise, if you want the most "natural" that would actually be oil paints.

Green: But oils are toxic.

Me: Not necessarily. The pigments are usually mixed in linseed oil, which is just oil from flax. Hmm, probably the most natural of the paints, really. If you use solvents to clean up it would be toxic, but there's non-toxic solvents out now. But it's hard to get out of clothes, so for kids maybe not so good, but if "natural" matters, it might be the best bet.

Green: I heard there's fumes from oils, I can't use that.

Me: The fumes are mostly from solvents people use to clean it up. Using oil paint is like leaving any vegetable oil open in the kitchen. Like having a dish of olive oil on the dinner table. I don't really recommend oils for little kids anyway without direct supervision. It's an interesting idea: "green" paint.

Green: Are you sure there isn't anything? I really need to get something.

Me: Well to be technical again, I guess there's a lot to consider. Let's start with the vehicles. Oils are probably the most natural, acrylics probably the most un-enviro-friendly, since I think the acrylic is probably a petroleum derivative. To think about the pigments, some are more natural than others --

Green: Okay. Give me those, in all the primary colours, and a bunch of other colours.

Me: Well, natural and non-toxic aren't the same thing. Flake white has lead in it. Lead is more natural than say, quinacradone which is used in a lot of reds, but quinacradone is non-toxic in typical use. And I can't gather up a whole rainbow of colours. Some are more arguable more earth-friendly, like the browns. They're usually made from clay silica, like from different regions, which is why they're called raw sienna and burnt umber and such. Arguable they're more eco-friendly.

Green: Only the browns?

Me: Probably not only, but now that I think about it, it could be they're worse than the manufactured pigments: how do they get the clay? Do they clear-cut a forest to get at the clay? Gently by the riverbed? I don't know. Clay's non-toxic, unless the dry pigments are breathed in, then it can damage your lungs, which doesn't normally happen when you're painting. Other colours like the madders are from plants, I think the roots. I assume they're greenhouse grown, that'd be efficient, but I don't actually know. And the non-toxic, manufactured pigments may have other waste chemicals from production that aren't good wherever they're disposed of.

Green: Okay. Umm..

Me, barreling onward: I remember speaking with a customer who was vegan who did murals, and loved our in-house student brand. She was worried the carbon black might use charred animal-bone soot. Carbon black always used to. So I called the manufacturer, and asked. They put me on with the chemist, and he explained these days they make it from acetylene, since it they can have more control. The vegan was happy.

Green: ...

Me: And I guess whatever you end up using, you'll have to consider disposal. Most people just rinse brushes in the sink. But you could have the kids rinse them in a basin, let the basin water evaporate, and you'd just have a bunch of pigments at the bottom. Don't breathe that in. You can see, there's different issues to consider for not only the type of paint, but also the individual colours.

Green: Okay. Well.

Me: The best bet, I recommend, is to just use kids' tempera paint, and maybe have them paint in recycled items, like egg cartons or something. I wouldn't advertise the paint as being eco-friendly, though.

Green. Okay. I'll have to check with someone. She said there'd be environmentally-friendly paint, I should just call the store. We just wanted to use whatever's the most green.

Me: Well if your friend knows of a specific brand, I'd love to know about it: call me back! As I say, a lot to consider. Go with something non-toxic and washable for kids, and that would be the best choice in my opinion.

Green. Okay. Thanks, bye.

Me: Let me know how it goes! Thanks.

- - -
Me afterward, thinking: Damn, I read too many science blogs.

- - - - - - - -

Saturday, 15 May 2010

How I'm categorized on Twitter

In the interest of artistic narcissism and the urge to examine, I took a look a few minutes ago at what Twitter lists I have been included on.

To date, I'm 60 lists (2 of them mine), and from the titles, here's an interesting breakdown:



Science lists: 35
Artsy lists:
18
Skeptic/Atheist lists:
4

I did count three of the lists as both art and science. At any rate, interestingly enough, on Twitter at the moment, I'm considered more scientific than artsy.

I know why there's such disparity.  We need a Chosen One to bring trilobites to the unwashed artistic masses.  I will be their savior.  I will spread the word of the Trinity-Lobed Ones and the paintings will be glorious.

You can follow me on Twitter @flyingtrilobite.

- - - - - - - -

Original artwork on
The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under
Creative Commons Licence.

Flying Trilobite Gallery *** Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ***

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Happy Ada Lovelace Day!

In honour of Ada Lovelace and the importance of women in science, here are two scientist portrait-sketches I posted last autumn. Eugenie Scott


Jane Goodall

Happy Ada Lovelace Day!



- - - - - - - -
Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.

Flying Trilobite Gallery
*** Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ***

Friday, 5 March 2010

Art in Awe of Science at the Centre for Inquiry

Tomorrow, Saturday 6 March, I'll be taking part in a panel discussion at the Centre for Inquiry Ontario at the annual meeting. The theme is the intersection of art and science, and I'll be on the panel with Paula Gardner of the Ontario College of Art & Design and Roshelle Filart of the Ontario Science Centre.

Should be great fun. In the next couple of days, I'll report on the discussion and the CFI gallery show, where I met artist Karyn Wong.

- - - - - - - -

Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.


Flying Trilobite Gallery *** Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ***

Thursday, 14 January 2010

ScienceOnline2010: Push it til it breaks

(Today, a guest post by my ScienceOnline2010 session co-leader, Felice Frankel!)The process of coming up with a visual metaphor to explain to someone a particular scientific concept can be quite effective, not only for your readers, but for you –– the process can help to clarify the concept in your own mind. In addition, a discussion about the limitations of that metaphor can be just as clarifying (and fun!). We are incorporating this idea in our NSF-funded Picturing to Learn program.

For years, I have wanted to create an online library of metaphors to communicate complicated science concepts and to engage whoever was interested in why and where those metaphors fall apart. We should do it. Who wants to be part of it?

Here a just a few examples from George Whitesides' and my new book No Small Matter, Science on the Nanoscale.
Quantum Apple

...an attempt to depict the counter intuitiveness of quantum mechanics. Not necessarily a deep portrayal to be sure. I just wanted the reader to get a handle about the idea that QM is NOT like the world as we "see" it.



Writing with Light

How some devices are made using "photolithography".



Graduation Chairs

...so much of what we see is dependent upon where our heads are at, at the time we see it. Coincidentally, while I was working with researchers at MIT imaging samples showing "templated self-assembly" of block co-polymers (another example with which you are more familiar would be DNA replication), the facilities folks were setting up chairs for parents which were meant as "guides" or "templates", where to sit during graduation. Again, nothing that profound but perhaps interesting enough to get some feedback. I decided to post the image and ask people to write to me and suggest what they see in the metaphor. The responses were all over the place:
"... an illustration of orbitals and similar constraints on electrons in an atom."

"The image reminds me of columns (or rows :D) of ICs"

"...circuit on the motherboard of a computer."

"...gravestone markers in a cemetery."

- - - - - - - -
We'll see you at ScienceOnline2010!
- - - - - - - -
Today's images Copyright by Felice Frankel.

Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.


Flying Trilobite Gallery *** Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ***

Saturday, 19 December 2009

Science Online 2010: Art & Science intro

At the upcoming ScienceOnline2010 in January, I will be on hand again to lead a session discussing art & science, this time working alongside Felice Frankel. I thought I would do as last year, and put up some of the things I'm thinking about for this year's session in advance, so whether or not you will be attending, you can take part in this discussion. I don't presume to speak for Felice here, although after a wonderful phone call a few weeks ago, I think it's safe to say we'll be leading the discussion and not heatedly debating.

To follow this series of posts, click the "scio10art" label below.
(I will also be doing a workshop about digital painting with a tablet - for more on that, look for posts labelled with "scio10tablet".)

Let's get started.

From the wiki, "
How has our vocabulary of metaphors changed in the wake of scientific inquiry and visualization? This year, let’s take a trip through metaphors in science-based art and discuss how visual representations can enhance understanding, inspire wonder in science and the tension along the Accuracy-Artistic Divide."

Last year we discussed art, science, the two cultures, and I identified what I feel are various types of science-art. I also fretted about art being parasitic on scientific discovery, and could only identify a few instances where art propelled research.

This year, I'd like to focus on artistic metaphors in science imagery.


From The Free Dictionary, metaphors are: "
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison...One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol...."

Visual metaphors are just that, symbols of one thing representing another, making a comparison, usually of their similarities. They have a rich history in art. The following example isn't necessarily related to science-images, but I feel it will be instructive about typical metaphor in fine art painting. This is one of my favourite paintings, alternatively known as Art or The Sphinx or The Caresses, by Fernand Khnopff, a Belgian Symbolist who painted this in 1896. To use this as one representative example, we see here a variety of metaphors. The artist is cheek to cheek with his muse, a rather androgynous, perhaps feminine version of himself (Khnopff favoured strong jawlines on the women he painted). They are alone in a landscape, alone with their thoughts, and seem to be communing. The artist gazes outward at the world, and the muse has closed eyes and a Mona Lisa-inspired smile, a typical Symbolist expression denoting "looking inward at the soul". The exotic cheetah stripes on the Sphinx also shows the wildness of the artist's thoughts.

Most of the metaphors I have just described were likely intended by Khnopff. In our contemporary view, one criticism we may employ is that many of the Symbolists portrayed the men as hero-poets in thrall to not-quite-human women, portraying their anxiety at turn of the century European culture.

It's one example, but The Sphinx begins to show us how many visual metaphors can be packed into a simple painting with two figures.

Next post: an overview of science art & imagery, categorizing them by type of metaphor.



- - - - - - - -
Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.
Flying Trilobite Gallery *** Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ***

Monday, 9 November 2009

Art Monday: Lights portrait series

This is the series Lights I began for my drawing course at York. Our project was to draw between 5 and 30 heads. The idea and compositions I set for myself are fairly simple. Draw portraits of living biologists, each with a light source on their heads, and incorporating a double helix form.

I've shown Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter before here, and Jane Goodall here. This time I've included Eugenie Scott and Jerry Coyne.

Jerry Coyne.Eugenie Scott.
Jane Goodall.
Craig Venter & Richard Dawkins. (I couldn't resist one of my DNA Candles on Dawkins!)

I think of these more as sketches now. All I can see are their flaws.
-Richard Dawkins needs to be re-done, with his head turned to a three-quarter view.

-I made Craig Venter's face too interesting (though it was by far the most popular with my class.)
-Eugenie Scott's hair looks too dark. I tried to use the books to show education and poise.
-I think I need to re-work all of Jerry Coyne's piece. I like the firefly, kinda. The rendering is too rough.
-Jane Goodall's I am happy with the portrait - very happy - but it's hard to make out the helix-gorilla looking down behind her.


Damn, it was an arrogant thing to sit down and expect myself to polish off decent portraits (of people I admire!) in a couple of weeks, in my spare time. Not sure what I was thinking. It wasn't until the last one that I realized this was kind of a folly.


I'm posting these perhaps as some insight into my thought processes. The York University motto is "The way must be tried."


So, um, there.

- - - - - - - -
Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.

Flying Trilobite Gallery *** Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ***

Saturday, 17 October 2009

Science Checkmate

Using my oil painting Science Accommodating Religion, I've been noodling around with the image.

This might look good on a t-shirt if I punch up the colours to a less painterly, more graphic cartoony look. Hmm. I saved the image with all the pieces in separate layers so I can move them around and resize them easily. Now that I look at it, perhaps the pieces should not be so evenly spaced.

Looking for opinions: how should I tweak it for a shirt in my repro shop?

- - - - - - - -

Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.

Flying Trilobite Gallery *** Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ***

Tuesday, 8 September 2009

Send GrrlScientist to Antarctica!

I want to send GrrlScientist to Antarctica. I'll explain via Rossetti and Audubon.

These days, art critique always contains caveats and perhaps ironic winks with the reader about visual opportunities missed by the artist.

Years ago, I inherited a great number of art books from my great-grandmother. After reading through leather-bound Ruskin, and books a hundred years old, I found a true gem.

A book about Dante Gabriel Rossetti that it is written free of irony, free of cynicism. It is a critique and a review, but one that found the Pre-Raphaelite artist worthy of unabashed, uninhibited praise. It was a medicine I had not known I needed. I re-read it fro
m time to time to remind myself to aim for that high altitude of inspiration in another human being.

Since reading this book I have wished to find another review of art -any art- that speaks so favourably it evokes a thirst to experience the art through the critic's eyes.

When Open Laboratory 2008 came out, I was stunned by one contribution in particular. In that anthology of blog posts is one by GrrlScientist about John James Audubon, the ornithologist and painter, the only scientific illustrator found in most fine art survey texts. The blog post, entitled, Audubon's Aviary: Portraits of Endangered Species rings with well-deserved reverence and love for the artwork. Grrl laments the loss of the birds now gone that Audubon lovingly captured full of inquisitive life. It's a blog post I find moving and inspiring and that has changed how I look at Audubon and scientific illustration.

Quark Expeditions is currently holding a contest to send a blogger to Antarctica for the month of February, 2010. GrrlScientist is strongly in the top few but she needs more votes. She's in third place as I write this out of 575 registered bloggers. You can find Grrl under the name Devorah Bennu, and here is her essay. It only takes a moment to register, and there are no follow-up ads or anything.

I voted for Devorah and want to see her win not just because she is a scientist-blogger who can write accurately and with some wit. I voted for Devorah Bennu because she is the grrl who is not afraid to write about the beauty she finds in Antarctica. She's worth reading, she's inspiring, and that's what a trip to the cold continent deserves. Ferocious inspiration.

Vote!

- - - - - - - -

Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.

Flying Trilobite Gallery ** Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ** twitter.com/flyingtrilobite

Sunday, 12 July 2009

My 2 cents on Francis Collins

The National Post newspaper here in Canada I read both print and electronic formats of. It is the only paper up here that generally recognizes the culture wars and plays both sides. There is a regular columnist who is a priest, and they carry pretty much any article Christopher Hitchens writes for Slate.

A little while back they launched the Holy Post blog to round up their rationality vs religious articles. "Get down on your knees and blog" is the tagline. Funny, but I'll stand, thanks.

Regarding Francis Collins' recent appointment to the National Institute of Health in the 'States, it didn't take long before they trotted out NOMA and paraded it around like it's new, obvious and a smart thing to say.

My response to Stackhouse's article:

For myself, as someone raised without religion, the problem is trust. Though his scientific endeavours in the past have showed rigor and good management from what accounts I have read, I find it very hard to trust the intellectual stamina of someone who converts on the spot to Christianity because of a beautiful frozen waterfall.

The religious impossibilities that so many people believe in while still being able to understand the natural world are examples of compartmentalizing.

But Collins' waterfall conversion is absurd. It's like he began believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn because it started snowing.

He looked at the beauty of the natural world and it wasn't enough. He had to paint the scene with specific, irrelevant ideas to accept his feelings.

- - - - - - - -
Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow under Creative Commons Licence.
Flying Trilobite Gallery *** Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ***

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Guest post at Alternate Reality Existence

Recently, I attended SciBarCamp here in Toronto where scientists and artists were thrown together to create a conference. One of the most vibrant and energetic contributors was Star Spider of Alternate Reality Existence.

Star describes herself as a science cheerleader, and works as an alternate reality event planner, and is helping organize the upcoming Subtle Technologies Festival here in Toronto. Anyone interested in the intersection of art and science in Ontario should seriously consider attending. Looks pretty fascinating!

Star was kind enough to ask me to guest blog at A.R.E. and here is the result:
An Increase in Our Allegorical Vocabulary

Flying Trilobite irregulars (you people are not normal! Heh.), feel free to comment at A.R.E., or right back here.
- - - - - - - -

Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow under Creative Commons Licence.
Flying Trilobite Gallery ### Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ###

Saturday, 23 May 2009

Gift from god? I don't think so.

It happens to artists. Surgeons. When someone marvels at the eye, or bacterial flagellum.

"Your art ability is amazing. A gift from God, no doubt."

*sigh*

Just because something is hard to understand, just because complicated processes occurred that you did not witness, does not mean it was caused by a benevolent mythical being who hands out aptitudes like Santa with presents.


It has been a source of fascination to me, -and not a little frustration- that the ability to create art and the complexity of biological features each sit in the blind spots of members of the devout populace.


Like a gift from god. It's throwing your hands up in the air and casually (lazily) admitting ignorance.


I get it: it's supposed to be a compliment. But it actually insults me, though I usually reserve my cringing to myself. I have worked really hard to get where I am in my artistic ability, and I still reach and try to learn. There was no magic *poof* granted to me as a child that allowed me to render a decent life drawing or balance colours in a composition.


That was studying. That was attempts at keen observation. That was making countless mistakes I attempted to learn from. Feedback. Crits and criticisms. Learning from indifference. Trying new materials. Replicating happy accidents. Sharing techniques.


If this happens to you, encourage a bit of reasoning. I don't like being a jerk. Somehow, any response I can think of seems like a rebuke.

"Those years of school I paid for were earned. Not a gift. " (Those heart-wrenching hours when you push a painting too far and ruin a perfectly good life drawing don't feel like gifts either.)

How does one say it? How do you lead a person to reason? How do you encourage them to pull the holy book out of their mouth before they speak?



- - - - - - - -
Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow under Creative Commons Licence.
Flying Trilobite Gallery ### Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ###

Friday, 15 May 2009

SciBarCamp: can art benefit science?

This post is meant as a summation and continuation of the session I suggested at SciBarCamp last weekend. Please feel free to send me an email or make a comment regarding any corrections, attributions or new thoughts based on the talk. For those who read The Flying Trilobite and were not at SciBarCamp, please jump right in. You can read tweets about the art session and other sessions here.

(Not all ideas below are my own, and I may not be quoting directly, but grabbing the idea from my quickly scribbled notes. I'll attribute where I can, and feel free to correct in the comments)
- - -
Notes on the session:

->Tried to lay a quick ground rule that although I'm sure we agree any human activity requiring skill can be described as being performed "artfully", we should be talking about things usually associated with art: visual image-making, performance, music. Not the art of being a chef, "she's like an artist preparing those cell cultures" or stuff like that.

->Posed 4 questions to kick things off.
1) Can art direct research?
2) How can art advance the basics of science? Will there be written a Harry Potter-sized success about science?
3) For the scientists in the room - have you invited artists into your lab or research space?
4) Does art obfuscate understanding? Does it do more benefit than harm?

->Previous to this session, I had only heard of one specific instance of art directing an area of research (see comments here), which I related to our group. Artist Paul Walde opened the topic wider, and pointed out that that's what science fiction does all the time. Communication devices. Google maps from Snow Crash. Space elevators.

->Walde: By imagining things we've never seen, and explaining them, we form a sort of hypothesis similar to scientific hypothesis. By imagining, understanding.

-> Reflecting now, I wonder whether biology from science fiction will come into its own some time this century, the way technology already has.

->Jim Ruxton mentioned artist Ned Kahn's environmental work, making people stop and think about the breeze blowing down a street they might use every day. Calling attention to scientific principles using beauty to make people question.

->Joel Sachs described Feynman's drawings of gravity and its behaviours as an example of art clarifying though not literally being accurate. Laurence Middleton mentioned a horse's kidney looking more like what we think of as a kidney than our own. Art can clarify by reducing, especially in medical illustration.

->Artist Paul Walde and biomedical simulator David Steinman debated the importance of accuracy in science-art.
Walde states that many scientific experiments are themselves fictions; removing conditions that may affect the data is unreal.
If it's inaccurate to the data, scientists will not necessarily want you in their lab, Steinman argues. Experiements are 1st order approximations, art further removed.
Which is why scientists have such bad P.R.! artist/science cheerleader Star Spider laughs.

-> Are art and science two cultures? This came up. Surprisingly when I compare it to the consensus at the ScienceOnline09 session, the answer here at SciBarCamp was yes, they are driven to be that way in popular culture now. They aim for different things.
Steinman points out that unlike previous centuries in science, scientists now have little training to do their own drawings from nature, the night sky or microscope lens.
Middleton suggests it is because there are fewer generalists now, and people are forced to specialize as much as possible.
I wonder if that's why so many people switch careers at different points in their life?

->I mentioned that although there are exceptions,
in fine arts there's sometimes a "Frankenstein" idea of science. Eva Amsen sent tweets, and had a brief exchange with Beagle Projecteer Karen James during the session about the session! (This what I love about Twitter.)

->Almost invisibly, science and especially chemical technology drive painting. Consider the story of the colour mauve, which only became available to painters in the late 1800's. The 1890's Symbolists are sometimes referred to as painting in the "Mauve 90's". Many red paints fade quickly, and are known in painting as "fugitive colours". Modern reds made from quinacradone, are now widely in use because the do not suffer from this problem.
Sachs joked he wanted to commission a painting called "Fugitive Colour" painted entirely in this pigments, I guess so he could watch it fade to a stain.

- - -
A great session everyone! Lots to think about. I felt my brain stretch. Head here for some more photos.

.
- - - - - - - -
Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow under Creative Commons Licence.

Flying Trilobite Gallery ### Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ###

Sunday, 1 February 2009

ScienceOnline '09: art & science continues

"A poem is never finished, just abandoned". Paul Valéry's quote also applies to the visual arts.

Following the art & science session a ScienceOnline'09, here are some more reviews of the session and compelling new topics and examples in the art and science mold.

-Nobel Intent - review and reflection of the session.
-Expression Patterns - overview of day 2 and photo of me loving Jessica Palmer's Apostemism.
-Art Vs. Science Part Two: You want raw data? You can't handle raw data! - at Bioephemera. Jessica continues to explore the ambiguity between real data and its use in partially related art. Does this tension lead to any better understanding? Does it corrupt the data for irrelevant use? Head over and check out the video.
-Almost Diamonds - the conference. Meeting SF author Stephanie Zvan and her husband Ben was one of the highlights of the conference for me.

You can follow the ScienceOnline label to see more links to this lively session.

Bora has also a link of the wonderful supporters of ScienceOnline '09. My gratitude to each for an unforgettable experience.

- - - - - - - -

Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow under Creative Commons Licence.

Flying Trilobite Gallery ### Flying Trilobite Reproduction Shop ##
#
2009 Calendar available for a limited time
Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Glendon Mellow. All rights reserved. See Creative Commons Licence above in the sidebar for details.
Share |