Art is the teacher, science is the lesson.

Both art and science involve learning - learning to use a tool.

Science is the passed down knowlege of how to use the environment, discovered painstakingly by past 'scientists'

A scientific concept is susceptible to scrutiny and criticism - it the idea does not correlate with observations of reality,

it is debunked (or should be).

Art is the externalisation of the internal world, expression, creating and shaping the object world in a way that reflects the artist.

A skilled artist uses tools and complex techniques to produce the changes in their environment that they relish, such that expression is fluid.

An artist strives to illustrate, to depict, to describe, to resonate their being (including its subconscious elements) through the actions and drives of their libido.

The results of creation are not cut, chopped and ripped by critical interpretation in the way scientific ideas can be. Both science and art are limited by the understanding of the recieving person, and therefore the method of communication, however art is on a loose leash while science is in a straight jacket.

Similarly expression to other entities is hindered by complexity, and aided by simplicity. Symmetry is attractive to the mind and is quickly assimilated, while incongruence and abstration grind against the psyche's search for meaning. Hence the scientist and artist look to condense their ideas into effective, elegant memes; in this way a great number of individuals from different realms can apprechiate the kernel is wisdom inside.


Is logical, scientific insight channeled through a more strict analytical apparatus than artistic efferents?

It seems that science does not so effectively inspire emotion in a recieveing mind.


If symmetry is crucial to still visual and indeed cognitive beauty, what significance does this have to music, which adds the dimension of time?

Could rhythm be symmetry through time? it would seem so...