I've seen many of these attempts, and I have tried to hold my judgement on the effectiveness of such a thing, but really, I think someone should explain to me why this is a good idea.
This news items reports a seminar to be given on the topic of science and the arts. My guess is that the primary aim of this is to present science through the arts, either with painting, performance, etc.. etc. I don't get it. I've mentioned this before many times where I questioned the accuracy and effectiveness of such a presentation (read here, here, and here).
Maybe I am illiterate in the arts, but I thought that 'arts' are often subjective, and deal predominantly with emotional quality. How is this a reflection of what science is? Furthermore, how do you know how your "art" is interpreted by the viewing public? After all, we already have seen how the public can misinterpret even when given a direct, English-language response. Interpreting it via some artistic expression will just makes it even worse, won't it?
I'm all for communicating science to the public in ways that can engage their attention and interests. I just don't think this is one of those ways, because I see it creating more confusion and misinterpretation than necessary.