I am interested in this article about a group called XVivo that does scientific visualization at the cellular molecular level (several orders of magnitude bigger than what I'm interested in).
I'm intimidated by the sophistication used to model these forms, but I'm not interested in creating illustrations that are content with unexamined modes of communication. My goal is to question the assumptions of how data is visualized and interpreted, even at this level of sophistication. *Especially* at this level of sophistication.
Of course, they do go into this a bit in the article "Dr. McGill acknowledges that showing cellular processes can involve a significant dose of conjecture. Animators take liberty with color and space, among other qualities, in order to highlight a particular function or part of the cell. “All the events we are depicting are so small they are below the wavelength of light,” he said.
But I think I have little to worry about - these illustrators aren't interested in this process as philosophy, and don't seem to want to have the process of illustrating the unseeable be the subject of their work.
Glad there is not a conflict, especially as this allows me to fully enjoy these amazing images.
That said, I do not agree with the following testimonial statement:
“XVIVO’s animations are the ideal integration of art and science...”
Les Szabo, Pure Potential Media
Now, I know you're not supposed to take these things seriously, but, no - art and science both relentlessly question basic assumptions. These animations are "background dependent" illustration (to steal a phrase from physics) in that they take the basic substrate of illustration theory for granted.
harmit09232010 from XVIVO | Scientific Animation on Vimeo.
Check out the many more on the site.
No comments:
Post a Comment