Why scientists say what they say about art and people who deal with it

Why scientists say what they say about art and people who deal with it?

Yes,why?

Because, Scientists take cues from the art world to understand and learn all about it and also about people who work there and just say what they see! Sometimes I feel when you come from a different field where the parameters to understand, measure and decide things are different, scientists get puzzled too.

However, when scientists say a few things they learned from the art world, funnily, artists are objecting to this! I will give a few examples here.

When scientists want to learn about the definition of art, they find  hundred and one definitions! Interestingly, each artist gives one different definition (ref 1). I have noticed the statements artists make almost always start with the words "Art for me is..."! I never heard a scientist say, "For me science is..." because science has fixed values and rules and the definitions don't change according to the experiences of the person like it is in the art world. This really is strange. And I have got an explanation when one of the art sites says why this is so (2)! The article on the site says: There are several ways you could go about defining art. This is because art is an ever evolving field and the definition keeps changes as times go by. Also, each artist has a different view on art depending on his experiences in art.

But an artist got annoyed when I said the above things. He says when definitions change according to peoples experiences, they could be wrong!

Now what can I say?

Science is different though. It works based on a few sets of rules and to define science, the thing you are defining must adhere to the rules.
No such rules in art. So anybody can give any definition to art!
Even if there are rules in art, the unlimited freedom artists seek make them break them and render them irrelevant! So each artist gives one definition and a different meaning to art!

Also one definition of art given by a famous artist here in India: "Art is something that communicates the personal views of the artist about the world around him".

When I told this artist for me art is a way or tool of communicating science, he again got annoyed. According to him, art doesn't communicate anything! And doesn't convey any messages!    

I was shocked! Because another artist too told me art doesn't convey any messages!

But my art and some other art forms I have come across too convey messages! Art is a way for us to communicate science to illiterates who are highly prevalent in this part of the world. Moreover, it is our experience that when shown in a picture form, children learn science subjects easily.
Art can communicate a science message. When curators told me people were discussing science standing in front of my art works in galleries now, I was thrilled. When people told me they were discussing science sitting in front of my art works in their living rooms, I was thrilled because my messages got through.
Your experience defines what art is for you ( artists) and my experience defines what art is for me and they need not be the same!

Different individuals have different views on art depending on the cultural conditioning of their minds. But for me, a real art work should convey a message something conceived specially and uniquely by the person who perceives things differently from others around him/her. That is real creativity for me.

Again when I said while science and its laws are universal in nature and are the same everywhere in given set of conditions, various art forms have their origins in the cultures they embedded in and therefore, vary from place to place, although some forms may agree with one another, another artist objected to it! According to him art too is universal! I was flabbergasted!
I think, according to him, I was belittling art by saying it was not universal!

Okay, tell me, is classical music the same in the Europe and Asia? Aren't sculptural art works in the temples here in South Asia different from the paintings we see in the churches of Europe? Even the opinions artists express on a single object differ from one region to another depending on the cultural conditioning of their minds. Do you see Burrakatha and other art forms we see here anywhere else in the world? Haven't they originated from the culture we have here? How can it be universal?

Do animals and inanimate things have  art worlds like human beings have? But science rules animal, inanimate and human worlds!

And aren't laws of Physics or chemistry same everywhere in the Universe? Doesn't evolution follow the same routes in Europe, Asia, or America? That is why science is Universal!

And according to some artists science based art is just graphics, not art! Just graphics? My science based art fits several definitions of art and galleries all over the world agree with this! Science based art is an art form too!

I wonder why artists become so emotional and can't bear to see the reflections of their own worlds from scientists. I sometimes really find it difficult to deal with the artists.

A psychiatrist friend of mine who read this blog, said that a few things tell about these artists. And... I refuse to add these things to the blog. Because I don't want to make the relationship between scientists and artists more complicated!

References:

1. http://kkartlab.in/forum/topics/what-is-the-definition-of-art

2. http://arthistory.about.com/cs/reference/f/what_is_art.htm