How do scientists perceive Science Art?

One Answer

1. Oh, what a cool question.

   I think I can just answer it – I do fundamental mathematics, and in my spare time I do a couple of Science Art projects (http://dothingspushthings.tilda.ws/). And I've seen enough of other people's projects, too, of course.

   I must say that at first it was perceived more as a kind of game, something funny. You can't make a discovery in a museum. The scientific component of Science Art projects is often not so powerful from the point of view of science, although it is often presented with aplomb.

   But if you survive this first impression, then everything interesting begins.

   First, it's beautiful. Nevertheless, any such project is an artistic project, and accordingly, it contains some aesthetics and some, albeit concentrated, meanings.

   Secondly, having minimal experience working on projects (or working on your own), you get involved in a wild DIY process. For me, as a person who mainly works with paper and pencil, this is valuable in itself.

   Third, you see a second life of models and experiments that were purely passing experiments for science itself. And so the joy that you felt when something started to work out goes not only to you, but also to many other people – otherwise it would have remained somewhere in the audience.

   Fourthly, in my opinion, the great value here lies in the whole idea of a complex, non-obvious, and sometimes counterintuitive world – this is what we all lack.

   In addition, often Science Art suddenly works in a popular science context.

   In short, if you overcome academic skepticism, then it seems to be a cool tool that allows you to squeeze additional meanings out of your work.

   Log in to Reply