Images

Images from Nanoscience

It is often argued that scanning probe microscopes gave scientists the ability to “see” the nanoscale with atomic level resolution—e.g., as in the iconic image of the company name IBM written in individual xenon atoms. How these instruments work, however, is closer to touching than seeing. These microscopes use an ultrafine probing tip to scan a nanoscale surface. This provides numerical topographical data (usually based on differential current flows) that is converted by computer software into a visual image. Relevant distinctions can then be enhanced through the addition of artificial colors and shading. The design of these images has changed through time—from line graphs, through two-dimensional shade variations, to three-dimensional peak and valley landscapes. Current designs conform to cultural expectations of what atoms should look like and successfully background the role of the software and the scientist in image construction. The process of converting numerical data into a visual image raises questions about the relationship between these images and the nanoscale objects they are said to represent, and about how these images should be presented so as not to be misleading.

Images from Nanoart

Nanoart is a nascent, diverse, and contested field. It includes artists creating nanoscale works; artists (sometimes in collaboration with scientists) creating exhibitions about nanoscience/technology; artists creatively imagining future nanotechnologies; artists and scientists creatively playing with images from nanoscience; and scientists claiming their images as art. The boundary between science and art is particularly contested, both because of the creativity involved in creating scientific images (in terms of design, color, shading, angle, etc.) and because artists may directly use scientific instruments or images. When scientists structure their design to match cultural expectations and add vivid colors to enhance visual appeal, at what point do these cultural and aesthetic considerations challenge the status of an image as “science”? At what point does reconfiguring scientific imagery become classifiable as “art”? Debates over the value of nanoartworks are also extensive. For example, the host of fantasy images depicting unrealized nanotechnologies (such as nanobots) are usually deemed to represent “low culture” artwork, with less artistic or aesthetic value than works displayed in the institutions of the art establishment. Images such as these, do, however, have high cultural significance in the sense that they are prominent in popular culture, and work to structure popular perceptions of what nanoscience is and aims to achieve.

...