The Art of Communicating and Visualising Science with Ipsa Jain

Storytelling is a craft. Building a world for your audience to immerse themselves in, is a feat that many try but only a handful can achieve.

But, what does the process of storytelling and communication look like? Especially when we are telling stories of things most people can’t relate to at the first go, like science concepts.

How does one simplify complex concepts?

How do you balance between accuracy and creativity?

We recently sat down with Ipsa Jain, a science communicator and visualiser to gain her perspective on how science communication and visualisation work together to create lasting experiences.

Read on to find out more!

Credits: Ipsa Jain

Tell us a little bit about your journey.

So I started as a run-of-the-mill scientist. At the Indian Institute of Science, I did my molecular biology PhD work and by the end of my PhD, I was quite certain that this is not what I want to do for the rest of my life. Then, I took some time to think about what is it that I would like to do.

Bringing science and drawing together seemed like as good an idea as any at that point in time.

Then again, I wasn't necessarily thinking about that as a career choice in itself but just something that I wanted to pursue. Within a few months I got the chance to exhibit some of my work at a student festival at IISc and there a lot of people liked and bought my work.

That sort of gave me the confidence that this is something that I can probably build a career out of. That's what it has been. I started with drawings and then I went to science communication and now thinking about public engagement. So, it has kind of been a whole spectrum.

Speaking of transitioning from a scientific background to a very creative field, what is the creative process for you like?

For me, it's very intuitive. It's not defined by training that I would have received if I was an art student or design student or something like that.

I think I still approach a lot of my projects like any scientist would, where I care about what is being said and how it's being said. I also acknowledge and understand that my skillsets, in terms of drawing or illustrating or graphic designing, are limited.

So, then I have to think about how is it that with that existing skillset, I can talk about what I want to talk about without compromising on the ideas.

There is this idea of the balance between clarity and accuracy and how creative freedom can sometimes be curtailed if you are hung up on accuracy. Ultimately, it's something that you have to decide based on the project’s scope or the audiences’ needs.

What are the scientific elements in your work and how do they help you tell the story better?

I mean my work is all about science. Either inspired by science or done for science communication.

Science is part of my work through and through.

The work that I do for myself, making zines or something, I often ask at that moment questions about perceptions of science, what scientists think of the methods of science, who does the labour in science, etc.

I think of science as a social enterprise and then ask questions about that. In my previous zine series, I was asking questions about cells; what are cells, etc?

Then, there are these odd zines which are about the idea of identity and individuality which are ideas that one could even extrapolate to society.

The last big project I did was around the public perception of science, what we understand by science and technology, why do we not trust scientific information sometimes, and so on and so forth. All that is an ongoing practice at the moment. I am trying to understand what is it that the public remembers and what is it that the public actually engages with in their daily lives.

We may know a lot of information but not necessarily be thinking about it or using it or making it a part of how we choose to lead our lives.

So basically, science is all part of my work- what I do things for is all science.

Do you think there are elements of SciArt in your work?

That's a question that I have also asked myself a lot of times. I have even questioned at one point in time, as to what does SciArt even mean?

For me, a lot of my work is more around science communication so I don't call that SciArt.

When I am using artistic methods that lead me to new discoveries, which may or may not be around science, that’s when I would call something SciArt.

These botanical illustrations, diagrams, cell cross-sections and so on, one could call those SciArt as well. But, I like the idea when one has imparted their own meaning or extended the meaning is when I would call something SciArt.

Now this doesn’t happen as much but there are a few small projects where this happened accidentally.

So, I'm particularly interested in how scientists draw or the drawing culture in informal science. Not like the ones they do in publication news, no. But actually, what happens in the notebook, what happens on a napkin in a conference. So, I think that kind of work can be SciArt.

2 years ago, I did a series of interviews and articles. I ended up doing a 4-article series with thelifeofscience.com to understand what exactly people mean by SciArt.

I just wanted to arrive at the definition that in my head works for me but I don't think there can really be a universal definition.

Can you tell us about amalgamating the scientific and artistic elements together how do you go about it?

I think it's about way of looking.

In my experience, there is just like a random fear, that the scientists have about art or artists would have about science, which makes no sense at all.

There are differences between the 2 kinds of practices based on their history and culture. In the workshops that I have conducted where I work with scientists and artists to introduce them to drawing or to introduce them to illustrations, both have been very open and receptive. One doesn't really have to fight very hard to make that happen, at least in my experience. So I think it's just about creating a space where these boundaries blur and then I think people adapt to it very quickly.

How are you balancing the two segments- Science and Art?

I’ll give you an example, I released a book last year it's called Actually, Colours Speak which is a science communication project where we talk about the science of colour change in animals.

So, I did this work in a lab where we looked at the kind of molecules that are actually involved in this process. I had real images, I had real models to think about, look at and understand.

Then, I had to think about how much do I want to tell my audience. I also wanted it to look fun. I had to decide, in this particular spread or in this particular image, what is it that one idea that actually want to put out. Is that coming through or not?

After that, everything can be decided based on whether that one idea is coming across or if there is too much clutter, hiding that one idea.

If I added too much detail then you are lost in the detail and you may miss the idea that I really want you to see.

On the other hand, a few weeks ago a friend and I did a zine-making workshop where we used Electro conductive paints and built circuits.

Here the medium was science but we had all the freedom to draw.

People came up with really cool stuff for this. Accuracy, in this case, did not matter. Yes, for the circuit to work, you needed accuracy. But, to communicate the idea, you didn’t need to be accurate.

Would you consider yourself a SciArtist?

For that, I'll have to first ask myself, do I consider myself an artist?

I'm still uncomfortable with that label so by asking me to be a SciArtist, you are asking too much from me.

Right now, I call myself a science communicator. It's also not a label that I am very comfortable with but have settled with it. This is the best I have at the moment because I do feel like a lot of work I do is more around science communication and public engagement and not so much around artistic theories.

What tag do you feel most comfortable with, keeping in mind the work that you are doing in telling scientific theories or explaining scientific concepts?

I usually call myself a science communicator; depending on the audience I might call myself a science visualiser. Sometimes I just say I am enabling science and society interactions. Personally, not too hung up on the labels at this point in life. I don't feel like there are one or three words that can really define what I have done and what I do or what I want to do.

How do you think that PurpleBlue House can further contribute to SciArt?

I think at this point what you could do is make space for conversations like this and maybe also think about building a community if that's a possibility.

I don't know if there are people in India who call themselves SciArtists.

There is also a larger question- Is that label important? Do we need to separate ourselves? Call ourselves SciArtists as opposed to calling ourselves artists or scientists.

One needs to maybe also reflect on whether that label is a requirement or not!

Community building I suppose could happen in a way where everyone could collaborate.

One of the biggest differences that I've realised now that I am working with the art and design school is that science happens on publicly funded money. In most cases you have a grant, you don’t have to worry about whether your project succeeds in 3 years or 5 years. Of course, you are accountable to your funding agencies but there is room for a certain degree of freedom.

But if you are an artist, you have to make your own money. They have to fight for grants which are fewer in number. So the competition I feel in art is very high and it can be less cooperative than in science. There is this sense of competition because you are fighting for fewer resources.

So the question becomes how to foster collaborations and build a community that doesn't make you feel like I'm competing with every other artist.

Disclaimer: The information posted here represents the views and opinions of the interviewee and does not necessarily represent the views of PurpleBlue House.