Art in Science stems from an irresistible need for visualization.
How can you distinguish the legitimate concerns of a good picture from the folklore and superstitions? Growing empirical evidence suggests we lack a coherent understanding of the decision rules governing picture choice. Humor is a genre of science that must also have an artistic content. Science is a difficult process requiring perseverance and a thick skin, elephants are perfect scientists. Competition is fierce and every image is taking something to gain an edge.
It follows that only artists can answer our instinctive needs, especially when the excess enthusiasm driven by math pictures ran beyond reason.
The artist is his own real model, which is computationally trivial.
"Institutionally, at least, scientists and artists still swim in different seas."
We are confident the model to be plausible.
Mathematicians spend their days swimming in an algebraic sea of meaningless symbols. Knowing that the scientific advancement may ultimately be a messier and more subjective process than we thought. In this messy picture, you may come across some cool tangents that are artsy but don't belong in the academic world.
Not thought provoking pictures however blurring the boundaries between outrageous absurdity and contemporary life.
In order to achieve popularity, the sheep artist must cater to the interests and intellect of the lowest common denominator, except for math art where denominators are to be cherished.
Hans Ulrich Obrist
Because for some papers, reading time approaches zero, just show the pictures. Bringing art to science gives you a good chance of having neither.