A little reflection on the very nature of sciences .. experimental details, recorded quantitative & qualitative observations & observations about repetition of the typical patterns associated ..all these characteristics are only absolutely correct at the outset or when a science is before it’s maturity. For instance, the sun rising in the east and setting in the west is although, a scientific phenomenon but requires no recording of observations numerical or otherwise to determine correctness. It is so because as a phenomenon it is so universal and so much heavily recurred over time .

An art on the other hand when repeated enough number of times & over a wide range of varying factors , acquires a methodical quality to it . For example a landscape painting, yes first off one needs to imagine how the view she wishes to pair would appear like and the next steps follow. But if one wear to paint 3-4 landscape paintings every day. Pretty soon, the artist would be able to articulate “How to make a landscape painting” in a detailed, step-by-step way(don’t know why but got reminded of wikihow).

So if one were to truly define the words art & science, it’d not be wrong to define them as below:-

Art :- A sophisticated & evolved scientific activity which has attained the proportions of a phenomenon or habit ( universally or individually respectively).

Science:- A sophisticated & evolved artistic activity which by virtue of getting repeated has found detailed in -depth characteristics.

let me know your thoughts on this..

An art is a highly evolved science & a science is a highly evolved art