The old art defends itself from modern primitive artists by suggesting that there is neither aesthetics nor psychosocial need for it. We become scientists because we are curious.
Every artist draws what he is, like self portraits, and every scientist represents himself as a bibliography.
A cursory and unscientific perusal of art history demonstrates that splattering without any forethought is not all that is ever required, but there is so much fun doing it because art is a chaotic mess. The whole publish or perish ideology is teaching people the wrong skills on imaginary problems, so I gave on reading on academic papers years ago because the amount of noise to signal was intolerable.
Art may need to say something about the natural world and how beauty works.
Science and humor gave humanity the power over matter, there is only make. The problem is that art is not a phase transition whereby a canvas or a drawing paper stops being ordinary and becomes terrible in an instant.
Often great discoveries are made when techniques from one discipline are tried in another.
As a psychologist you would know that if it demands complicated mathematical transformation, something is going wrong.
Hybrid science+art pictures may be accompanied by an explanatory legend that helps the visitor decode the underlying science, if needed.
Darryl Wheye and Donald Kennedy, Subject Matter Matters, Science 10 October 2008: Vol. 322. no. 5899, pp. 196-197
Be consistent: Once you start, don't stop. We will continue to do everything we can until these questions are answered.