On the Appreciation of NanoArt

8/14/2019 On the Appreciation of NanoArt

1/5

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 wordmay 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 oflength in the metric system, equal to one billionth of

a metre or one millionth of a millimetre, written in scientific notations as 1109 m or

1/1,000,000,000 metres, or 39.37109inch, or 10ngstrm. 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 ofappliedscience and technology whose unifying theme is the control of matter on the atomic

and molecularscale, 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 speculationexists 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 theNanoArt 2007 INTERNATIONAL ONLINE

COMPETITIONartworks showcased for large audiences. 37 nanoartists from 13

1
http://www.crisorfescu.com/nanoart.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?ngstr?mhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?ngstr?mhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_device_fabricationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecularhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanometerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdisciplinarityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_and_colloid_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_and_colloid_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_devicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supramolecular_chemistryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roboticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_engineeringhttp://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/index.php?cat=9http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/index.php?cat=9http://www.crisorfescu.com/nanoart.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?ngstr?mhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_device_fabricationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecularhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanometerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdisciplinarityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_and_colloid_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_and_colloid_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_devicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supramolecular_chemistryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roboticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_engineeringhttp://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/index.php?cat=9http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/index.php?cat=9


2/5

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=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=55&pos=0

http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=48&pos=1


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
http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/index.php?cat=9http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=802http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=55&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=48&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=52&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/index.php?cat=9http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=802http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=55&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=48&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=52&pos=0


3/5

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 ithas 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 Robersons 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

Gaos images:

http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=1(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 wereinvented.) 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
http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=55&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=62&pos=2http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=62&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=62&pos=4http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=55&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=62&pos=2http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=62&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=62&pos=4http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=0


4/5

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 to24K 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 ofnano-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
http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=69&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=36&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=2http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=60&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=60&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=45&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=56&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=69&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=36&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=2http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=60&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=46&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=60&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=45&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=56&pos=1


5/5




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

5
http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=3http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=4http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=42&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=2http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=53&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=52&pos=2http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=55&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=33&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=54&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=50&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=59&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=37&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=3http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=58&pos=4http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=42&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=2http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=53&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=52&pos=2http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=55&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=33&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=54&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=50&pos=1http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=59&pos=0http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/displayimage.php?album=37&pos=0

On the Appreciation of NanoArt

Documents

Transcript of On the Appreciation of NanoArt