Interesting and, yes, beautiful, in much of the way that an infinite number of aspects of the natural world are inherently and wonderfully beautiful. But calling it art is a subjective decision that seems more of a personal issue. In any case I submit that this essay, well written as it is, does not play to your strength, David. That is true of the excellent explications on potentially groundbreaking medical topics – a great public service to the benefit of all your readers.
My aim is to explore a variety of topics that pique the curiosity of my readers, even if they occasionally veer from my usual focus. That said, your point about the essay's deviation from medical explications is well taken, and I value your feedback. It's important to me that my content resonates with my audience, and your insights help guide that balance.
Thought provoking as always, David. Thanks. Stunning images, especially those blood vessels and neurons.
I'm going down the path of sitting between options 2 and 3. I think the hand of humans in the process (the decision of what to image, the choice of fluorophores, the settings used, the composition, the trawling of sections under a microscope etc) can lead to this being classified as art.
Equally, the more spiritual part of me considers that all nature is art. Life is the intricate dance of physics, biochemistry etc. Sometimes I feel that is an artform.
Oh and PS, we have an artist-in-residence at one of the labs in our institute.
Thank you, Nathan, for the kind words and reflections. It was fun rummaging through old images to find these. I too find a special allure in the blood vessels and neurons images - they seem to capture life's complexities so vividly.
Your perspective sits well with me, particularly the notion that human touch in the imaging process imparts an artistic quality to scientific endeavors. The deliberate choices in visualization certainly mirror many of the creative decisions that are made in art.
I resonate with the idea that all of nature could be seen as a grand tapestry of art. However, I'm cautious that too broad of a brush may ultimately dilute the concept of art, and it will lose it's distinction. If everything is art, can anything be art?
No question for me, even though I believe in the "art imitates life" premise according to Aristotle's Poetics where he talks about Mimesis one could hold the counter belief of Anti-Mimesis. Oscar Wilde was one of its main proponents. Life imitates art. Anything is art, as long as there is a recipient, at least one. You need an audience, a human audience, otherwise, you don't have art.
Then, of course, opinions vary, and people will tell you that, an exhibit of an ordinary urinal is art (Fountain, Duchamp), others will tell you you're crazy.
Edit: Forgot to say, those Pain Sensing Neurons. Amazing. Also, the zebrafish neurons!
These are some great philosophical insights! The notion that art's existence hinges on an audiences engagement is an interesting point. My thinking was more geared from the perspective of creation, but taking the perspective of the observer is equally important.
I had to search for Duchamp's Fountain, that was a good laugh.
I enjoyed the neurons as well. I have some more fun fluorescent images I may pull out over time.
Even from the point of creation, you can argue that anything that exists has been created through some means, the "Creator", even if today the imaging is automated, someone created that automation, and the use and display of the result of the automation, the framing of it, e.g. in a Substack post, the act in itself is creation. Is it art? As with beauty, that lies in the eye of the beholder.
Interesting and, yes, beautiful, in much of the way that an infinite number of aspects of the natural world are inherently and wonderfully beautiful. But calling it art is a subjective decision that seems more of a personal issue. In any case I submit that this essay, well written as it is, does not play to your strength, David. That is true of the excellent explications on potentially groundbreaking medical topics – a great public service to the benefit of all your readers.
My aim is to explore a variety of topics that pique the curiosity of my readers, even if they occasionally veer from my usual focus. That said, your point about the essay's deviation from medical explications is well taken, and I value your feedback. It's important to me that my content resonates with my audience, and your insights help guide that balance.
Thought provoking as always, David. Thanks. Stunning images, especially those blood vessels and neurons.
I'm going down the path of sitting between options 2 and 3. I think the hand of humans in the process (the decision of what to image, the choice of fluorophores, the settings used, the composition, the trawling of sections under a microscope etc) can lead to this being classified as art.
Equally, the more spiritual part of me considers that all nature is art. Life is the intricate dance of physics, biochemistry etc. Sometimes I feel that is an artform.
Oh and PS, we have an artist-in-residence at one of the labs in our institute.
Thank you, Nathan, for the kind words and reflections. It was fun rummaging through old images to find these. I too find a special allure in the blood vessels and neurons images - they seem to capture life's complexities so vividly.
Your perspective sits well with me, particularly the notion that human touch in the imaging process imparts an artistic quality to scientific endeavors. The deliberate choices in visualization certainly mirror many of the creative decisions that are made in art.
I resonate with the idea that all of nature could be seen as a grand tapestry of art. However, I'm cautious that too broad of a brush may ultimately dilute the concept of art, and it will lose it's distinction. If everything is art, can anything be art?
A valid point 😆
No question for me, even though I believe in the "art imitates life" premise according to Aristotle's Poetics where he talks about Mimesis one could hold the counter belief of Anti-Mimesis. Oscar Wilde was one of its main proponents. Life imitates art. Anything is art, as long as there is a recipient, at least one. You need an audience, a human audience, otherwise, you don't have art.
Then, of course, opinions vary, and people will tell you that, an exhibit of an ordinary urinal is art (Fountain, Duchamp), others will tell you you're crazy.
Edit: Forgot to say, those Pain Sensing Neurons. Amazing. Also, the zebrafish neurons!
These are some great philosophical insights! The notion that art's existence hinges on an audiences engagement is an interesting point. My thinking was more geared from the perspective of creation, but taking the perspective of the observer is equally important.
I had to search for Duchamp's Fountain, that was a good laugh.
I enjoyed the neurons as well. I have some more fun fluorescent images I may pull out over time.
Even from the point of creation, you can argue that anything that exists has been created through some means, the "Creator", even if today the imaging is automated, someone created that automation, and the use and display of the result of the automation, the framing of it, e.g. in a Substack post, the act in itself is creation. Is it art? As with beauty, that lies in the eye of the beholder.
Art has objective standards and how much they impact you is the subjective part. Very good article!!