The 2007 Olympus BioScapes digital image winners are in (image below by Andy Fischer, 3rd place). A panel of four biologists picked the top ten life science optical microscopy images based on three criteria: scientific importance, aesthetic beauty, and technical merit. The winners include glowing fluorescent images of mouse embryonic cells, chicken retinas, inner ear hairs, and a rat cerebellum.
The photos are undeniably fascinating and spellbinding. It's not every day that you see the textural cross-section of a chicken retina, eh? While it does a great job showing detailed views of microscopic biological terrains, the BioScapes contest fails to elaborate on the science behind the images. Are there reasons the scientists dyed certain features certain colors? What new information have these images uncovered? What exactly are we looking at in each photo anyway?
Scientific explanations aside, do pretty photos of scientific topics count as art? I would argue that, in order to qualify as "art", these images need several more layers of meaning to allow a viewer a subjective understanding of the scientific concepts involved. Arbitrarily chosen fluorescent colors aren't quite doing the trick for me.
what's next?
Posted by: Sparky | November 26, 2007 at 11:38 PM