On The Appreciation of NanoArt

On the Appreciation of NanoArt
Johnson Gao
January 23, 2008
Obviously, NanoArt is still a very new word today (when this article is written). That word
may have not yet been collected into most of commonly used English dictionary. The
definition of NanoArt has be nicely and accurately claimed by Cris Orfescu as : “A new
art discipline related to micro/nanosculptures created by artists/scientists through
chemical/physical processes and/or natural micro/nanostructures that are visualized
with powerful research tools like Scanning Electron Microscope and Atomic Force
Microscope.” Refer to a website below: http://www.crisorfescu.com/nanoart.html
As one can see it clearly that NanoArt is a combination word with two parts: Nano and
Art. From the quantity point of view, “nano” (that part has four letters) seems a little
more important than “art” (that part has three letters). It is true that without “nano”, there
will be no such an “art”. What is “Nano” means? My understanding for that part is:
nano=nano meter. Here, we can see From Wikipedia, briefly to say, a nanometre or
nanometer, symbol nm is a unit of length in the metric system, equal to one billionth of
a metre or one millionth of a millimetre, written in scientific notations as 1×10−9 m or
1/1,000,000,000 metres, or 39.37×10−9 inch, or 10 Ångström. It is also the most
common unit used to describe the manufacturing technology used in the semiconductor
industry.
Nano may also means Nanotechnology, that refers broadly to a field of applied
science and technology whose unifying theme is the control of matter on the atomic
and molecular scale, normally 1 to 100 nanometers, and the fabrication of devices
with critical dimensions that lie within that size range. It is a highly multidisciplinary
field, drawing from fields such as applied physics, materials science, interface and
colloid science, device physics, supramolecular chemistry (which refers to the area
of chemistry that focuses on the noncovalent bonding interactions of molecules),
self-replicating machines and robotics, chemical engineering, mechanical
engineering, biological engineering, and electrical engineering. Much speculation
exists as to what may result from these lines of research. Nanotechnology can be
seen as an extension of existing sciences into the nanoscale, or as a recasting of
existing sciences using a newer, more modern term.
It is pleased to know that the NanoArt 2007 INTERNATIONAL ONLINE
COMPETITION artworks showcased for large audiences. 37 nanoartists from 13
1
countries and 4 continents sent 121 NanoArt works to this second edition of the
international competition. Public online voting is now open through March 31, 2008
http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/index.php?cat=9
And a blog of review has been sent to my e-mail box. The reviewer has selected
four art pieces of his preference. Refer to a URL below:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=802
From artistic point of view I also like those four images that Roland Piquepaille had
picked up. I know very little about the background of that author. Maybe he is an art
reviewer, or, high credential amateur art appraiser. However, it seems to me that Roland
Piquepaille might have no deep root in nanotechnology, because that, among four
pieces he selected from 121 pieces of NanoArt submitted
http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=0
there are only two pieces contain obvious nanostructure and other two pieces are either
have little (diffused) or almost only with rudiment of recognizable nanostructure. So,
from NanoArt point of view, if “Nano” should have 50% weight in “NanoArt”, just as what
I had said in the beginning of this article (four letters in “Nano” viz. three letters in “Art”)
an appraiser of “NanoArt” shall stand higher than a conventional “Art” appraiser. Thus,
the new discipline of art requires artists to learn nanotechnology, at least the basic
knowledge of nanostructural classification. It also requires nano technologists to study
art and to master artistic techniques that may be used to let audiences to know the
significance of their nano work better.
Unfortunately, when I visited the voting page on the other day, my impression got from
those art pieces with higher stars voted was that a large number of voters are still
staying at pure art point of view instead of “NanoArt” point of view. Of course, we could
not ask too high at present time, since I believe that most of so called 37 “NanoArtists”
are still newcomers to this field. They are not as like as the founder of “NanoArt” - Cris
Orfescu, who is both a good artist and a good nanostructure researcher. You can see
how he had produced many top “NanoArt” pieces with extreme beauty but without
sacrifice the original scientific value of nanostructure. “Eye of Science” by Terisa
2
selected by Roland Piquepaille has got over 140 votes with average 4 stars show here
once more with that link.
To me it is a very nice and peculiar common art piece, thoughtful and beautiful, but it
has some distance to be qualified as a top “NanoArt” piece when added the weight of
“Nano” to it. On the other hand, to my eyes, Chris Roberson’s images
(20 votes to date, average three stars) and
(23 votes to date, average three stars) and
(18 votes to date, average three stars)
their counts are much lower than 140 vote, 4 stars in compared with above mentioned
page, can be considered as real “NanoArt”. He is the rare person among others that an
artist had joined nano research actively.
Furthermore, let me jump out from the circle of contributors of this competition, Johnson
Gao’s images:
(Only 8 votes to date, average 2 stars) and
(Only 14 s to date, average 3 stars) are belong to the un-modified (natural status, but
structurally enhanced) “NanoArt”.
The former one is superficially look like very low quality image, but, it is actually an
“antique” “NanoArt” image (produced 25 years ago before the term “Nanotech” was
popularly known, and it was far earlier than many advanced graphic softwares were
invented.) with super high magnification that careless viewers may even did not pay
attention to that while voting it. People know that an antique piece of China recovered
from a sunken vessel may look ugly or over simplify, but it may have great historical
value.
3
So, there is a problem set before us to evaluate any special piece of NanoArt. What are
the reasonable criteria?
My un-refined suggestions are as follows:

1. What is the percentage containing of nano-image in the “NanoArt”? (similar to
24K gold or not.)
2. What is the difficulty to produce the image through the procedure to produce that
nano-image?
3. What is the artistic function in the “NanoArt”?
4. Are those artistic procedures to be used to enhance the value of the original
nano-image or only to do the distortion?
5. What is the significance of the whole “NanoArt”? Or, is it only to use fragment of
nano-image to decorate a conventional art piece?
After viewing the majority pieces in this contest, I feel they can be categorized in five
groups: (with some URL pages as samples)
Group A: Plain natural nano-image which has artistic value by the beauty pertaining to
itself, or, the image was touched with negligible color adjustment, etc.
Group B: Nano-image with artistic modification to increase the quality or the pleasant
visual accessibility of the original image.
Group C: Nano-image with artistic modification to distort the original image in order to
get some artistic flavor or to increase its beauty.
4
Group D: Only tiny amount of fragmental nano-image was used to decorate a

conventional art piece and then call it a ‘NanoArt”.
Group E: “NanoArt” by name only (without or with almost no realistic or clearly visible
nano structures in it).
Above classification may not be very true to them. That is only my personal opinion.
I have referred all of them for you guys to search them for easier. That may help them to
consider how to evaluate a “NanoArt” piece based on equality of Nano (50%) and Art
(50%). Notice shall be also paid to the difficulty and complexity in obtaining the original
nano-image and its scientific meaning in putting stars to a NanoArt.
Finally, I should point out the fact that there really has a task in front before us, which
asks artists to learn Nano, and nanotechnologists to learn art. Or, make cooperation
between those two parties. Only then NanoArt will be more flourished and fairly
evaluated. Raise the spontaneous NanoArtists or NanoArtreviuwers to conscious ones.
May Mr. Cris Orfescu and his NanoArt be glorious in the near future!

On The Appreciation of NanoArt

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

On The Appreciation of NanoArt

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

On the Appreciation of NanoArt

(20 votes to date, average three stars) and

(23 votes to date, average three stars) and

(18 votes to date, average three stars)

(Only 8 votes to date, average 2 stars) and

My un-refined suggestions are as follows:

3. What is the artistic function in the “NanoArt”?

Group D: Only tiny amount of fragmental nano-image was used to decorate a

Вам также может понравиться