When Venet's commutative diagrams as art appeared in the AMS Notices (vol 49 no6 2002, pp663-668) this was mystification of the categorical approach by the artist. Good art but nothing to do with mathematics. Since many attempts to demystify mathematics have a visual aspect, the role of art here is interesting, as well as how artists see this kind of activity. One aspect of the continuing discussion seems to concern disciplinary boundaries -- complaints that some computer scientists, physicists, philosophers etc 'misuse' category theory or deride it. It's interesting that efforts to explain mathematics to the general public can fall foul of exactly similar complaints from an opposite quarter. Often public participation projects involve art in some way and these are indeed often funded under 'art-science' programmes. Most such projects are valuable for engaging the public and succeed in getting people interested, however the art is usually of no interest to artists concerned with current issues in contemporary art. This is not to say they are poor projects, but labelling them as "art-science" creates the false impression there is an engagement with art in a meaningful way. On the other hand there is art which references mathematics, but which has absolutely no mathematical content. For example Venet's work and others who lift elaborate equations to great visual effect. Yet other work (e.g. Conrad Shawcross) involves references to physics in a quite different, but still non-expository, way. It seems to be an open question how art might be used to promote or facilitate a genuine understanding of mathematics (which must involve the reasoning processes and apreciation of abstract structure). Perhaps Sol LeWitt (despite his writings and some critics (e.g. Rosalind Krauss)) indicates a possible way forward. Some of his work (just like Venet's) has nothing to do with mathematics despite the superficial apperance; other parts are worth thinking about. John Stell