Have your wonder cabinet and eat it too!

I’ve been spending too much time browsing etsy lately – it’s like windowshopping, only I don’t have to go out in the dismal drizzle that is Cambridge in March. One of the wonderful, fanciful shops I found is Andie’s Specialty Sweets. It turns out that if you ever wanted to have your wonder cabinet and eat it too, YOU CAN!


edible sugar fan coral and shells – click here to see more of the shells.


sugar ferns and fiddleheads

Every once in a while I run across something that represents core, archetypal, this-is-why-I-made-the-word-up bioephemera. I can’t think of a better example than illusory leaves, shells, and insects made out of sugar and chocolate. They’re ephemeral portrayals of ephemeral nature, designed to tickle the senses, and they are simply delightful.

Yes, the time lavished on them is clearly out of proportion to the time they’ll linger on the tongue, and I haven’t tasted them in person (the reviews I’ve read are highly complimentary, FYI). But I think these old-fashioned candies would make the most beautiful wedding cake decorations I can possibly imagine. And party decorations – I have an antique lab glass cloche, and when I have more disposable income. . . maybe a sugar wonder cabinet centerpiece?

Continue reading

Posted in Artists & Art, Biology, Conspicuous consumption, Ephemera, Frivolity, Wonder Cabinets | Comments Off

Conservation photography as social change

A few days ago, Sheril told me that I had to watch an amazing short film by Neil Ever Osborne. The video is ~20 minutes long, so I wasn’t able to find time until this morning, but I highly encourage all of you to watch it and share it. On one level, it’s a simply beautiful collection of wildlife photography (be sure to enlarge the video to fill your screen!) But on another level, the “emerging genre” of conservation photography raises fascinating questions about the intersection of art and science, documentation and advocacy. I’ll say more about that after the break, but first, the video:

Witness: Defining Conservation Photography Feature from Neil Ever Osborne on Vimeo.

Continue reading

Posted in Artists & Art, Biology, Education, Film, Video & Music, Photography, Science in culture & policy, Science Journalism | Comments Off

Adapting scientific illustration to modern needs

The Bora Zivkovic pointed out this article by Brian Hayes for American Scientist. After convincingly arguing that static, 2D scientific figures (in research papers and in popular science writing) fail to maximize the communicative potential of current technology, Hayes suggests that the dominance of the pdf as a standard document format may be partially to blame, and advocates adoption of the “D3″ (that’s supposed to be 3 in superscript, but WordPress is noncompliant today) framework to create more interactive graphics.

For the purpose of getting those nifty D3 graphics into science publications, there would seem to be two plausible approaches. We could open up PDF to accept a wider range of graphics formats. . .The alternative is to seek a better way to encapsulate all the bits and pieces that constitute a Web application, so that it can be distributed in the same way as a PDF. Something resembling encapsulated HTML already exists; it’s the basis of several file formats for electronic books.

In J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books, newspapers for wizards are ink-on-paper publications, but the pictures on their pages spontaneously come to life. It’s the best of both worlds—the familiar physical form of reading matter we’ve known since Gutenberg, but no longer lying still on the page. Out here in the land of Muggles we may never quite attain that kind of magic, but we could come remarkably close.

Read the rest of Hayes’ article at American Scientist.

Posted in Data Visualization, Science | Comments Off

“You’re radiant, Nikola.” “No, Marie, you’re electrifying.”

The folks at eavesmade used to only have scientist ornaments. Now they have scientist valentines and coasters. Adorable! (Can you guess what Wallace and Mendel say on their Valentines?)

Posted in Biology, Conspicuous consumption, Frivolity, History of Science, Science | Comments Off

Whale Fall

Whale Fall (after life of a whale) by Sharon Shattuck is a charming and unusual film that uses paper puppetry to show the ecological “afterlife” of a whale. The overall effect is a little Steve Zissou, a little arts-and-crafts, and pretty much as literal a case of bio-ephemera as you can get.

I think this film also elicits the feelings of wonder, poignancy, and interconnectedness that the author of “Reclaiming a Sense of the Sacred,” the essay from my previous post, suggests science can’t really speak to. She might well say that the emotional/spiritual aspects of the film come from its artistic presentation, not the underlying science, but I would say both are needed.

Via many places.

Posted in Biology, Ephemera, Film, Video & Music, Science | Comments Off

Its brain is the Enlightenment! Its gut is the Gothic Novel!

Ward Shelley’s “History of Science Fiction” seems almost exactly like what you’d get if xkcd’s Randall Munroe illustrated the anatomy of a snail-cephalopod hybrid. Sweet!

Via Hungry Hyaena.

Posted in Artists & Art, Littademia, Science in culture & policy | Comments Off

What “science as science” can offer us – or not

This fascinating essay by Marilynne Robinson, “Reclaiming a Sense of the Sacred,” is a thoughtful and insightful piece of writing. But unfortunately, as noted by my friend Jacob, it completely fails to distinguish science from scientism (or, I would hasten to add, techno-optimism). Thus, my experience of reading it was whiplash-inducing: after each paragraph, I suffered an overwhelming urge to blurt an enthusiastic “yes!” or an affronted “no!” and write an entire blog post right then. (Since it is a very long essay, that would have been insane.)

Continue reading

Posted in Biology, Littademia, Neuroscience, Science in culture & policy, Words | Comments Off

Metaphors of Neurobiology: A neuroscientist-artist explains his work

Required reading: this essay by Pablo Garcia-Lopez on the interaction between neuroscience and the arts:

My work as an artist is directly inspired by my experience as a neuroscientist. I completed my PhD in conjunction with the Museum Cajal, working with the original slides and scientific drawings of Santiago Ramon y Cajal (1852–1934). Besides being completely astonished by the historical and current neuroscientific concepts, and esthetics of his histological slides, drawings, (Garcia-Lopez et al., 2010), articles, and books, I was impressed by the great abundance of metaphors that he employed in his scientific writings. (source)

Overall, it is a very interesting essay from the point of view of an artist who is deliberately using art as a medium to shape the cultural perception of science. I might quibble, however, with using the “neuroculture” concept (credited to Frazzetto and Anker) to frame the essay, because I tend to view the interaction of art and science holistically, not field-by-field. Neuroscience is certainly “hot right now,” and Garcia-Lopez has focused both his scientific training and his art on the brain, so Garcia-Lopez may quite reasonably focus on what he knows. But I’d caution that too much reliance on “neuroculture” as a unique, particularly worthy or special pairing of biology and culture diminishes the broader themes Garcia-Lopez discusses, such as organic and mechanistic metaphors, and the evolution of science as a tool or muse of artists in the age of mechanical reproduction.

Thanks to Jennifer Ouellette for linking to this one.

Posted in Artists & Art, Biology, Medical Illustration and History, Neuroscience, Science in culture & policy | Comments Off

Pretty bones; hollow phrase

LIFE magazine may be no more, but the LIFE website still has lovely archival eye candy including these b/w photos, circa 1950, of skeletons and bones. Says the website,

Seen in a certain light, and photographed for LIFE by the great Andreas Feininger — a craftsman with the eye of a scientist and the heart of an artist (or vice versa) — the bones of animals as varied in size, behavior, and temperament as fish, bats, birds, elephants, hummingbirds, and humans are terribly eloquent, raising questions about life, death, and what we ultimately leave behind. (source)

I find the textual juxtaposition of art and science here fascinating – it’s a ubiquitous, perhaps even de rigeur juxtaposition, in the context of anatomical art. But (like the bones!) it’s fundamentally hollow. What is the supposed difference between the “heart/eye of an artist,” and the same organ in a scientist? The “or vice versa” aside makes it clear the copywriter has no clear difference in mind – should we? Is the line mere formalist obiesance to a categorical worldview, a hipsterish allusion to CP Snow? Does it invoke an “Emperor’s New Clothes” syndrome – one assumes the art/science distinction must mean something because people constantly say it does, even when the distinction is barely sketched, much less theorized? And what role is the “craftsman” bit playing, since “craft” is generally derided as neither art nor science?

Oh, who cares. There are pretty pictures of bones at the link!

Posted in Biology, Medical Illustration and History, Photography, Science in culture & policy | Comments Off

For quantifiably chic kitchens

A new trend? Measurement/conversion towels seem to be everywhere. . .

Towel by Bailey Doesn’t Bark, at Anthropologie ($32)

Continue reading

Posted in Conspicuous consumption, Design, Education, Retrotechnology | Comments Off