Many people are visual thinkers, and images have a powerful ability to shape how we understand scientific principles and concepts. The importance of art in science can be seen in the fields of scientific illustration and data visualization, among others, or by simply flipping through a textbook. In these cases, explicit visualizations help us more clearly understand a topic.
But here I want to explore a different question: What is the role for intentionally ambiguous art in science? This idea that "showing" is often better than "telling" has been well explored in written and verbal communication. You don't tell people how to feel. Rather, you evoke an emotion, feeling, or thought through subtext. Similarly, many kinesthetic, "hands on" learning experiences have also been embraced. As we continue to expand beyond lecture-based methods for teaching and outreach, I think there is a greater role for ambiguous art in science education and for inspiring public interest in the sciences. Below, I briefly make an argument for the utility of non scientifically explicit art in each of these cases.
Ambiguous art for science education
Collecting data is one thing, interpreting it is another. The below images are ones I made as part of an activity for the Ruthven Museum's Scientist Spotlight events. I was talking about natural selection, and wanted to show some classic examples. However, I ended up doing my own illustrations because it was surprisingly difficult to find what I had in mind. For the classic example of the peppered moth, web searches either showed only moths, or birds explicitly eating whichever moth stood out. While each type of image still leaves room for interpretation, I wanted pictures that allowed people to think about what was happening from step one. From that first question, you can keep asking more questions. Maybe someone answers that each moth has an equal chance of being eaten, because the bird is colorblind. Maybe they answer that the bottom moth is most likely to be eaten, because the bird doesn't want to stretch its neck. Those are fine hypotheses. The point is that you can keep asking questions about expected downstream repercussions. During that process, you are encouraging scientific thinking.
But here I want to explore a different question: What is the role for intentionally ambiguous art in science? This idea that "showing" is often better than "telling" has been well explored in written and verbal communication. You don't tell people how to feel. Rather, you evoke an emotion, feeling, or thought through subtext. Similarly, many kinesthetic, "hands on" learning experiences have also been embraced. As we continue to expand beyond lecture-based methods for teaching and outreach, I think there is a greater role for ambiguous art in science education and for inspiring public interest in the sciences. Below, I briefly make an argument for the utility of non scientifically explicit art in each of these cases.
Ambiguous art for science education
Collecting data is one thing, interpreting it is another. The below images are ones I made as part of an activity for the Ruthven Museum's Scientist Spotlight events. I was talking about natural selection, and wanted to show some classic examples. However, I ended up doing my own illustrations because it was surprisingly difficult to find what I had in mind. For the classic example of the peppered moth, web searches either showed only moths, or birds explicitly eating whichever moth stood out. While each type of image still leaves room for interpretation, I wanted pictures that allowed people to think about what was happening from step one. From that first question, you can keep asking more questions. Maybe someone answers that each moth has an equal chance of being eaten, because the bird is colorblind. Maybe they answer that the bottom moth is most likely to be eaten, because the bird doesn't want to stretch its neck. Those are fine hypotheses. The point is that you can keep asking questions about expected downstream repercussions. During that process, you are encouraging scientific thinking.
While most visitors to the museum easily explained the moth example in a traditional manner, the next illustration caused considerably more confusion. In fact, it seemed to equally perplex both 10-year-olds and the other graduate students in my lab. While everyone was more hesitant of their interpretation, even young children usually came up with an answer that described weak selection for longer necks in giraffes. Much of the indecision came from my unclear distinction between "long" versus "short" necked giraffes. Doubly perplexing, the giraffes have multiple options of what to eat.
At the time all this confusion regarding the giraffes was unintentional. Within the first hour of going on display, I had even decided to re-make the image before the next event. However, I soon realized it was a good thing. By confusing the kids at the exhibit, I had gotten their attention, and they were more engaged in trying to figure out what was going on.
Art for outreach. Sometimes it can just be fun!
I recently did bat face painting at Michigan's Great Lakes Bat Festival. While there were plenty of hands-on educational activities I could have volunteered to help with, I pitched the idea of face painting. I wish I could say it was linked to my continued, deep contemplation of the role of art in science communication, following my experiences above. In reality, I was overworked and stressed at the time, and painting sounded like a way to unwind while also doing outreach (I had also previously painted batty faces at the Indiana Bat Festival). Both bat festivals have educational talks, learning activities, and arts and crafts. However, I like to think that having cartoonish, oddly colored bats on their faces gave kids a special appreciation for these animals. What do you think?
I recently did bat face painting at Michigan's Great Lakes Bat Festival. While there were plenty of hands-on educational activities I could have volunteered to help with, I pitched the idea of face painting. I wish I could say it was linked to my continued, deep contemplation of the role of art in science communication, following my experiences above. In reality, I was overworked and stressed at the time, and painting sounded like a way to unwind while also doing outreach (I had also previously painted batty faces at the Indiana Bat Festival). Both bat festivals have educational talks, learning activities, and arts and crafts. However, I like to think that having cartoonish, oddly colored bats on their faces gave kids a special appreciation for these animals. What do you think?