Dilemma

This question completely stumped me. I have tried time and time again to wrap my head around it, but with each attempt I’ve confused myself even further. My first reaction when I read the question was to say “Well sure, art is qualitative while science is quantitative,” but I soon realized that theory was flawed. Some forms of art, such as photographs or songs, can give a viewer exact quantitative information like science would. At the same time, science isn’t all about numbers. It tells us why and how everything around us works the way it does. In fact, telescopes and microscopes work very similarly to cameras. Upon my second attempt to tackle this question, I started wondering how it is that art and science are different to begin with. Drawings can’t tell you precisely how big something is, but they can show it in comparison to something else, and give you the general idea. Isn’t that the same as science? There is never a single exact measurement of something, but figures and digits allow us to compare sizes and amounts of things. Both art and science use relativity to give us information. While art uses drawings, science uses numbers. Then again, science uses drawings (ie diagrams) too, and who’s to say art doesn’t incorporate numbers? So then what is art and what is science? This is where it all becomes very unclear.