Biological Art

It seems the New York Times has been killing it lately with features about biological research that is doubling as fine art. A few weeks ago they had an amazing article and video feature on biological animators, who use state of the art computer graphics to help us see the minute processes that sustain life. Proteins folding, RNA at work, the animations are truly inspired work.

Then this week they have a slide show of images of the brain, from a coffeetable book by Carl Schoonover, a PhD candidate in neuroscience.

I was about to comment on how it seems as though Scientists have a much greater appreciation for art than the other way around; more than once I've heard scientists (or science-types) lament that many artists wear their ignorance of scientific knowledge as a badge of pride whereas many scientists also have an interest in the fine arts. However, I have quickly realized this must be a false dichotomy. Especially in these cases, we have Scientific Artists, or Artistic Scientists. A college professor of mine, David Ehrlich, would always hold a series of panel discussions every year where a group of scientists would discuss ways that "creative" approaches helped them in their research and where a group of artists would discuss ways that "scientific" thinking helped them in their projects.