A good work of art includes an implicit little packet of data that may or may not be fully realized in the work itself, but nevertheless contains a set of questions, the answers to which can sometimes be real concrete things (as opposed to philosophical query). If I were to make a portrait of edwin Hubble, say as a lithograph, and exhibit it, the data packet that accompanies it includes questions like who was this person? Were they famous? If so, for what? These questions have concrete answers. In this way, a work of art can be a kind of jumping off point for the viewer to pursue a further study of the subject matter. This seems obvious, of course. How many hours have historians spent trying to find out exactly who posed for the mona lisa? In terms of science communication, while art cannot necessarily play a pedagogical role (a portrait of Hubble only says it is a portrait of Hubble to those who know his face already) it can pose questions that can, in a very real sense, spark curiosity or interest, and lead to further research on the part of the viewer. Of course, this doesn’t always work out, and in fact someone viewing the portrait might be wholly more concerned with the technical aspects of the drawing, or the formal concerns of the composition and media, and the contextual issues surrounding it’s exhibition and motivation, but I would say that our most basic reaction to a piece of art is “why was this made” (when not suppressed by an art critic bent). So, perhaps, in our culture of ever-increasing connoisseurship and (in my opinion)a rather distasteful trend toward an oinoglossia of art consumption, we are overlooking this most basic function of a work of art- that is, to cause the viewer to question the reasoning behind its making. This questioning could be a powerful tool for science communication, as it opens a dialogue about subject matter and its importance in the viewer’s own cultural or societal context. In the case of my own work, I try to deepen this tendency toward questioning through appropriation of historical images, in the hope that even a vague familiarity with these images stirs some kind of recognition for the viewer when looking at my work. From there, the conceptual issues surrounding my treatment of the works can be viewed in the context that they belong- a dialogue with history and a communication of ideas surrounding the subject matter – science. It is my hope that the work does indeed spark curiosity, through the construction of a different point of view for familiar historical or scientific facts.