Martin Weber wrote:

> You're missing a point. Science IS art.

Is it?  Personally, I don't know.  However, I am aware of a few things:

1) In Art, you create something that exists to be interpreted, and often, 
the more ambiguity, the better.  The same art communicates something 
different to each person.
2) In science, you want no ambiguity.  Interpretation isn't a factor.  If 
the same science communicates something different to each viewer, you've 
failed.

There are any number of subtle nuances that differentiate Science and Art.  
Art is all about the internal universe, and science is all about the 
external.  While many of the motivations, patterns, side effects, and goals 
are superficially similar, I believe that there is a fundamental difference 
between Art and Science -- as much of a difference as there is between 
which parts of your brain you excercise when you practice one or the other.

I'm reminded of the adage:

"Artists look inside themselves for truth.
 Mathemeticians look outside themselves for truth.
 Psychologists say mathemeticians tend to be a lot happier than artists."

--- SER