Types of views on science-art

I have noticed six types of views from  different people on science-art interactions:
1.Artists that are into science-art and therefore follow it religiously and support it vehemently
2. Artists who are not into sci-art and therefore don't like it for various reasons ( I have already written on this)(Ref 1,2)
3. Scientists who are into science-art and therefore are largely biased towards it ( right now I am writing on this subject )
4. Scientists who are not convinced about the merits of science-art and are very skeptical about it ( am writing on this too)
5. Journalists who want to increase the sales of their journals/magazines/papers and therefore spin, twist and exaggerate things (and bore me a lot)
6. The man on the street who is confused all about it because so many views pull him on all the directions!
As a neutral observer ( yes, I try to detach myself from all this as much as possible ) , I find all this drama very amusing but still I will have to put all these views across on my network which serves as a journal for a very balanced view.
I think we should concentrate more on skeptics in both the fields and address their concerns first. And of course , it is more important to remove the confusion of the layman, not add to it by complicating things.
To tell you a secret, when I am with my skeptic scientist friends, I support science-art interactions - but by putting only the points I find correct from a critical analysis - so much that they get annoyed and tease me and ask me to leave science and go to the field of art if I love it so much! They think I am biased towards it!
Artists think I am biased towards science!
Now what should I do? Smile, smile, smile and smile! :) :)

References:

1. http://www.fastcodesign.com/3025245/asides/jane-austen-game-theoris...

2. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116170/jane-austen-game-theorist...  Using science to explain art is a good way to butcher both