art is not so simple to describe objectively.different people in different environments often conceive art differently sometimes depending on the emotions or feelings evoked from its visual or tactile appreciation.no one person can really fully describe art except as his rendition of it or its elements.this metamorphic nature of art gives it different lifeforms over the ages and that’s how come we can appreciate today century old artworks the likes of Picasso,caves of Lascaux, to Rome’s Trajan’s Column to the illuminated manuscripts of the Middle Ages, to the dazzling neons of Ginza.
Marjorie Munster-berg says that the simplest visual description uses ordinary words to convey what the writer sees. First he or she must look at the subject – slowly, carefully, and repeatedly, if possible – to identify the parts that make the whole. These parts must be sorted into the more and the less important, since no description can include everything, and assumptions must be separated from actual observations. It is easy to confuse what we see with what we think we see, or what we know is there. Then comes the difficult job of finding appropriate words. In effect, writing a visual description consists of two separate acts of translation. The first transforms a visual experience into a verbal one and the second turns a private experience into one that can be communicated to someone else.
In my opinion,it is art that makes the world what it is today and if science contributes considerably then look for art in science and you will see that it is still art.