5:15 PM - 7:15 PM
[O02-P06] A Study is Drawn -Autoethnography of a conflicted Painter-
★Invited Papers
Keywords:Interdisciplinary, Art , Visual , Aesthetics , Science Communication
The use of visuals is an effective method in research, as recognized by the work of Vesalius in anatomy. Visuals are also an essential tool in scientific communication, which is becoming more and more necessary. In recent years, scientific illustration service providers have been recognized, and image generation AI has made it easy to obtain a certain level of visuals. We are now in a research environment where visuals can be used in a more substantial way. On the other hand, however, there are still few cases where advanced visualization is used in research. One example is the production of complex visual representations by painters. When painters create scientific illustrations, or “scientific visual representations,” they face problems and conflicts in terms of their sense of purpose, creativity, and aesthetic significance. In this presentation, we will introduce examples of work by the presenter, who is a painter. In particular, we would like to provide the audience with a topic on the conflicts that arise when visualizing Yuki Araki's studies, and together we would like to think about how to better visualize in Site of Science.
The following two main topics will be discussed.
1. The frustration between purpose and expression
The “purpose” of scientific illustration and the “expression” of research findings require different approaches. While illustrations are required to explain and reproduce findings, emphasis and conveyance are emphasized for the sake of clarity. In this respect, the painter's free creativity is stifled, and “expression” is hampered as it follows the demands of the “objective”. In Arthur C. Danto's “The End of Art,” it is said that art has reached the stage of philosophical inquiry into the self, and is now more than mere visual representation. In representation, the issue is how far to allow the artistic intelligence and sensitivity that the painter possesses, as well as the philosophical generation of meaning, and how to strike a balance. Between practicality and philosophicality, can scientific visual representations remain in demand as a mere device for transmitting knowledge, or can they be creative entities that encourage the reciprocal generation of new ideas between knowledge and the viewer? This is a question that concerns the identity of the work.
2. Art and the “Site of Science”
This section also touches on the structure of the “Site of science” when science and art are interdisciplinary. Academic societies have their own systems to maintain theoretical rigor, reproducibility of data, and impartiality of scientific results, and sometimes inhibit researchers' choices and actions. When we seek to utilize the arts in such a setting, problems arise in demonstrating the advantages of the arts, such as subjective experience and diversity of interpretation. At times, the risk is anticipated that art utilization will be accepted as “something that is not in the mainstream of academia,” and the significance of collaboration will be seen as “something that is interesting but does not require deep thought,” and the risk of being viewed as something that is interesting in an overly low or unthinking manner is expected. This is similar to the misunderstanding that arose when Pop Art first appeared, and can be seen as an aesthetic question about how institutions act on art.
How to find one's place in such a conflict will be an issue that scientists and the painters who participate in it should be aware of.
The following two main topics will be discussed.
1. The frustration between purpose and expression
The “purpose” of scientific illustration and the “expression” of research findings require different approaches. While illustrations are required to explain and reproduce findings, emphasis and conveyance are emphasized for the sake of clarity. In this respect, the painter's free creativity is stifled, and “expression” is hampered as it follows the demands of the “objective”. In Arthur C. Danto's “The End of Art,” it is said that art has reached the stage of philosophical inquiry into the self, and is now more than mere visual representation. In representation, the issue is how far to allow the artistic intelligence and sensitivity that the painter possesses, as well as the philosophical generation of meaning, and how to strike a balance. Between practicality and philosophicality, can scientific visual representations remain in demand as a mere device for transmitting knowledge, or can they be creative entities that encourage the reciprocal generation of new ideas between knowledge and the viewer? This is a question that concerns the identity of the work.
2. Art and the “Site of Science”
This section also touches on the structure of the “Site of science” when science and art are interdisciplinary. Academic societies have their own systems to maintain theoretical rigor, reproducibility of data, and impartiality of scientific results, and sometimes inhibit researchers' choices and actions. When we seek to utilize the arts in such a setting, problems arise in demonstrating the advantages of the arts, such as subjective experience and diversity of interpretation. At times, the risk is anticipated that art utilization will be accepted as “something that is not in the mainstream of academia,” and the significance of collaboration will be seen as “something that is interesting but does not require deep thought,” and the risk of being viewed as something that is interesting in an overly low or unthinking manner is expected. This is similar to the misunderstanding that arose when Pop Art first appeared, and can be seen as an aesthetic question about how institutions act on art.
How to find one's place in such a conflict will be an issue that scientists and the painters who participate in it should be aware of.