That's really interesting. I've always thought that art has empirical truths in it that are inextricable from the truths that science seeks to figure out.

There was some writer who commented that science without myth/allegory to give it a story has no purpose. I think art serves the same function, it's a metaphorical language that has so much in it and can inform so much. I don't think that the rationality of science has to be, or should be, separated from it.

It seems to approach things from the view that if things 'feel' true, that they are (or are likely to be), but seems somewhat lacking in perspective. Things criticised, like Freudianism, used similar lines of reasoning as justification. If intuition were enough, we wouldn't need to test things at all.

Having artists create visualisations of scientific concepts may help the public and/or students grasp them better, but it doesn't benefit to process of scientific investigation itself, and most likely those doing the research don't require them to understand it.

Otherwise, scientists need to be creative, they don't need to be artists, the two aren't synonymous by any means.

I SEED.

And although I do agree on the ever increasing trend for artists to lean more and more towards science (especially as the culture shift of accepting art as research and science as culture is beginning to be more apparent for people) there is also the reaction in the art world against anything and everything, including itself.

So while they are becoming closer than have been in hundreds of years (when science and art were generally accepted as intrinsically tied) they will always be two separate disciplines with a sect of each belonging as much in one world as the other.