Do you feel it’s important to popularise science?

I think it is extremely important to make science accessible to everybody. Science has an ever increasing impact on all our lives. It is therefore very important that all members of society should have access to the tools which will allow them to make the best use of scientific and medical information, and so make the best decisions for themselves and their families. But accuracy of scientific information must be ensured, together with balanced assessments of risk.

 

Your art is a fusion of glamour photography and 3D molecular models. What gave you the idea of combining the two?

I was interested in trying to do two things. Firstly, to show that molecules are relevant to everyday life; and secondly to create a positive image of chemistry and chemicals. The composite photographs show the role of molecules in everyday situations and the visual style (which is attractive, modern and stylish) hopefully makes the science seem more relevant and positive. The advantage of using beautiful images is that you can attract the viewer’s attention and then communicate ideas of chemistry, without having to use any technical words. Many people find the language of science off-putting, so visual images are helpful and useful since you can avoid these words.

How and when did you first start making these images?

I have always been very struck that some people use the word chemical to solely describe something which they feel is dangerous and toxic, whilst I, as a chemist, use the word chemical to describe more or less everything around us. I wanted to show that chemicals make up our bodies, our food, our weekly shop, and that whilst some chemicals are dangerous, others are not. These images were an attempt to show that we use chemicals all the time, in our everyday lives.

As an artist and also a chemist, do you feel that you personify the traditional conflict between the arts and the sciences?

I don’t generally think of myself as an artist, since I have no training in art. I am very visually aware, and very interested in art, but I don’t think that creatively I operate as an artist.

Do you feel there will always be a schism between art and science, or now, with computer aided design, is there a "meeting of minds"?

I have worked creatively with artists, and on the basis of these experiences I think that scientists and artists do, more often than not, have different cultures and different ways of looking at the world. This does not mean that there cannot be a "meeting of minds". The ultimate challenge is for artists and scientists to work together creatively, whilst both parties contribute their different knowledge, ideas and creativity. I know of some people who operate within both the cultures, but I think it is unusual to find one individual who has both scientific and artistic creative culture. Computing may well provide a useful interface between art and science, but I am sure that there are many other novel ways in which scientists and artists can work together.

    next > Page 1 of 2